Standing Committee B

[Janet Anderson in the Chair]

Identity Cards Bill

Clause 5 - Applications relating to entries in Register

Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 79, in clause 5, page 5, line 12, leave out paragraph (b).—[Mr. Allan.] 
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Janet Anderson: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following amendments: No. 80, in clause 5, page 5, line 12, leave out
', and other biometric information about himself'. 
No. 152, in clause 9, page 8, line 28, after 'allow', insert 'all of'. 
No. 97, in clause 12, page 11, line 2, leave out paragraph (b). 
No. 98, in clause 12, page 11, line 2, leave out 
', and other biometric information about himself,'. 
No. 106, in clause 14, page 13, line 20, leave out paragraph (a). 
No. 107, in clause 14, page 13, line 21, leave out paragraph (b).

Humfrey Malins: On behalf of those on the Opposition Benches, may I offer you, Ms Anderson, the warmest of welcomes to the Chair and all our best wishes? I hope that I can be forgiven for saying that our earlier debates have been constantly good humoured, which is always a bonus. We are delighted to see you in the Chair.
The amendment that was being referred to is the critical one in relation to biometrics and the Government's capability to carry out their functions under the clause in a mechanical way. I had rehearsed the arguments and was just concluding my remarks. I was saying to the Minister that it would be helpful if he could, subject to the normal rules of commercial confidentiality, give some indication about which great players in the field might take under their wing this huge enterprise of the technical side of creating the register. I also wanted to know what some of the considerations might be. 
I do not think that I am breaching any confidential commerciality when I say that I have received a briefing from one of those who briefed this Committee saying that a company called Atos has reportedly expressed interest in running the national scheme. Two other major providers of outsourced services, Capita, which runs the London congestion charge scheme, and Serco, which runs the UK's ballistic missile tracking  and warning system are understood to be cautious about bidding for the contract. Misgivings are believed to relate to security, civil liberties and reputational risk. 
I simply ask the Minister to tell us as much as he can on that very important area which came under the second test, to which I referred earlier. Although amendment No. 152 is not the lead one, subject to any guidance from the Chair and depending on the way the debate goes, I might seek to press the matter to a Division later in the day.

Patrick Mercer: I join in welcoming you to the Chair, Ms Anderson. Things have been light-hearted so far. The proceedings have been extremely efficient, and I have no doubt that they will continue in the same vein.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) is not in his place, because a number of his interventions in earlier debates were telling. He expressed grave concern about the need for identity cards being associated with needs other than those purely of counter-terrorism. He mentioned control of illegal immigration, assistance to track down criminals who are about to commit, or are in the execution of, serious crimes, and money laundering. 
Terrorism and all those subjects are inextricably linked. That is why I want to echo the words of the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis). He talked about the need for two tests, as exemplified by amendment No. 152. The first is whether the biometrics of the card will work. The second is whether the Government, and, therefore, the Home Office, can put these things in place. 
I will not talk about biometrics, but about previous examples where technology has either failed or been introduced too early. I will use historic examples, because that is what I am familiar with. I am not talking about biometrics, but the technology in question was the biometrics of the day. I am talking about the Northern Ireland driving licence, which was used as a form of identity card in Ulster in the '70s, the '80s and indeed the '90s. We were promised that the card would help considerably in countering terrorism. I mentioned in an earlier debate how the card came to be seen more as a pass than anything else, perhaps abetting terrorism rather than countering it. 
There were practical issues with the biometrics of the day—namely, the technology of the day—which made sure that the card did not work. First, the card was extremely shoddily produced—it was not waterproof. That meant that after two or three exposures to the driving rain of Ulster the thing started to fall to pieces. Secondly, the licence was desperately easily faked. The photograph contained inside it could be levered out, replaced with another and sealed up in such a way that the card became completely meaningless. Again, that assisted terrorism rather than thwarted it. 
Are the biometrics on the card that the Government are talking about going to be successful? Again I take the point that the hon. Gentleman made—when are we going to indulge in biometrics? Are we going to wait  for them to be perfect or are we going to use them now? I thought that that was a persuasive argument. The fact remains that we must not try to use a technology of biometrics which is in any way less than feasible, if not perfect. If we do, the scheme will be worse than useless. If we do, we will be making a stick with which to beat ourselves rather than an asset for our security forces. 
Let me give another example. Again, I am talking about the use of technology to combat terrorism in Northern Ireland. In the late '80s it was decided that a plate checker would be introduced for service, a piece of technology that would assist by automatically reading the number plates of cars as they passed through permanent vehicle checkpoints. It was introduced prematurely; it did not work. It did not work to the detriment of that particular brand of terrorism. Cars were able to pass unchecked. Plates were easily faked. The terrorists became used to what was required of the plate checker. In other words, the technology—for which we might substitute biometrics—was not up to it. 
On the point about fingerprints mentioned earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), serious and organised crime in Ukraine has put a finger—forgive the pun—on the fact that fingerprints can be removed. The process is painful, but can be done. If we are going to have fingerprints on the card, then all eight fingerprints will have to be on there, as discussed. At this point, are we in a position to say that biometrics are useful, that we can make them work and underlie the utility of this card? 
Secondly, there are the logistics of the card. We have had many examples so far showing how difficult it will be to get software and other computer programmes physically to ensure that these cards are correctly configured and distributed. 
Sticking to the subject of terrorism, the Government told us last year that households were going to be warned about the threat of terrorism and how to cope with that threat. A leaflet to tell every household was produced. There are 1.5 million households that have yet to receive that leaflet—that is 1.5 million households that have yet to understand what message the Government are trying to put across. That is relatively simple stuff. 
What chance do we have of ensuring that such technical details for identity cards—with all the biometrics required on them—are going to be feasible? I would be grateful if the Minister responded to those two challenges, in terms not only of the technical aspects that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) and a number of my hon. Friends have outlined so clearly, but of the straightforward, practical elements of historical examples that I have seen fail.

Des Browne: I add my warm welcome to that of the hon. Members for Woking and for Newark (Patrick Mercer), Ms Anderson, and I look forward to this afternoon's sitting under your guidance. I am sure that our sittings will continue to be as good humoured  and inquisitive as they have been until now, and hopefully we will make significant progress on the work before us this afternoon.
As I expected, we have had a wide-ranging debate on these amendments about a number of issues to do with biometrics. In the spirit of my contributions thus far, I shall seek to respond to the degree that I can, subject to the general caveat that if I am unable to give detailed information that is available to be given, I will ensure that it is provided to Committee members at some time in future. 
In essence the contribution from the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam raised a question of principle: why are we planning to have a biometric identity card scheme? The answer is twofold. First, the international developments, which were alluded to in interventions and responses during the course of our short debate, mean that there is a move towards document security through the introduction of biometrics. We in Britain have already agreed to be part of that drive and development across the world, and that process has the support of all the parties represented in this Committee and the House. For example, the introduction of a facial image biometric in British passports starts in about a year. 
The inclusion of fingerprint biometrics in visas, which has already started, means that we need to develop biometric enrolment for other purposes. The United States US Visit biometric scheme is already in operation and means that every British citizen who wants to visit the US will need to enrol their fingerprints in anticipation of it. That measure does not affect British citizens immediately, but it will progressively do so. A substantial number of British citizens travel between the UK and the US. 
Secondly, the inclusion of biometrics will allow a step change to be made in our ability to identify individuals precisely and to combat identity fraud. That means that we will be able to prevent people enrolling on the system twice and that the biometric will help to link the person to an established identity when using public services, or in commercial transactions. I use the term ''established identity'' carefully, because although the biometric is important, we need to consider its use in the context of the whole scheme. We need to combine that technology with reliable checks on an individual's identity to ensure that the identity established is the true one. That is why I am contextualising the debate. We could debate the possible flaws of biometrics in any number of circumstances until the cows come home. However, most importantly, and as the Bill spells out, the scheme is designed to operate on the basis that the biometrics are collected personally from the individual who is present. Checks will circumvent a lot of peoples' concerns about biometrics, and all the problems that others can identify will be overcome, because the person will be present and the biometrics will be taken by a trained operator. 
The hon. Member for Woking quoted the National Physical Laboratory report on the use of biometrics, which is a substantial document of about 38 pages which has, appropriately, been published. That report  was commissioned by the Government to inform the discussion and to lead to informed decisions that needed to be made. It would have been inappropriate for anyone to quote from it at length, because we can all read. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to refer to it, but, of necessity, if we choose one or two sentences from it, they must be contextualised. 
The report was produced specifically for the Home Office, the UK Passport Service and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency to consider the feasibility of using biometrics as a means of establishing a unique identity. My argument is that the report answers many of the question asked by hon. Members about the feasibility of the use of biometrics. It concludes that, in principle, fingerprint or iris recognition can provide the identification performance required for the unique identification of the entire population. I stand by that conclusion and pray it in aid in support of the argument for continuing down such a route. 
The report recognised that the system would be groundbreaking, certainly in scale and for the United Kingdom. It would be one of the largest biometric schemes to date. The report recognised the differences between a scheme for general civil application and one that was used for storing criminal data, which is the difference between the existing fingerprint database to which the police refer constantly and what is proposed under the Bill. It acknowledged that there would be cost implications, especially because of the need for personal enrolment and interaction to collect the data securely. 
The National Physical Laboratory recommended that we undertake a large-scale biometrics enrolment trial. We did exactly that, which is why the Government set up the UK Passport Service biometric enrolment trial of some 10,000 people. The collection of data has recently finished. The trial tested the process of enrolling biometrics and customer experience with different user groups. The report is not available yet, not even in shortened form, but its principal conclusions will be published later. 
One of the initial messages that we have gleaned from the trial is that the volunteers saw no particular problem with enrolling three biometrics and, if they were enrolled at the same time, the cost of so doing would clearly not be three times the cost of enrolling a single biometric—the implication of the short arithmetic of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam when he suggested that the cost would be £500 million or £50 million to collect a biometric, but that it might cost three times that sum to collect three.

Richard Allan: In the spirit of fairness and contextualisation to which the Minister referred, he should have said that I said, ''and, if the Government are arguing that it would not cost three times, it would be helpful to know the incremental cost when it goes from one biometric, to two biometrics and then to three.''

Des Browne: To be fair to the hon. Gentleman, he did say that. I am not in a position at this stage to give him a response. We are carrying out the steps that were suggested by the report that has been prayed in aid by others as an appropriate way in which to proceed.
During the procurement stage of the scheme, we will examine systems and supplier examination to compare the technology available. Perhaps I should now deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Woking about which companies might be carrying out such work. We have yet to enter the procurement phase of the scheme, but the companies mentioned are known as IT integrators, such as Atos and Serco, and those that we would expect to express an interest or to consider whether they should be interested in such matters. I have no way of knowing the source of the quotation that was produced by the hon. Gentleman. I do not know whether it was the result of an after-dinner conversation or a publication. For understandable reasons, I have no direct communication with any of those companies. I reassure members of the Committee that I have gone to great lengths to ensure that I will not have. I have no way of knowing their views and whether they will be interested in such work. 
To my knowledge, several IT integrators and smaller companies specialise in biometrics. Some of them are spin-off companies from universities. From my knowledge of the university of Glasgow, I know that at least one company operates in the area. It is a spin-off from research undertaken at the university. I know of that company because I was a student there. I am sure that Committee members who have contact with other universities will know of similar companies throughout the country. 
It would not be right at this stage to respond to the question asked by the hon. Gentleman. We have gone to significant lengths to ensure that the whole procurement process and the advice that the Government take is known and understood. The system that we operate will be transparent. As a Government, we have taken advice. We are being advised by PA Consulting, and we have set up a special Government biometrics group chaired by the chief scientific adviser, advised by individual academics and industry experts from the Home Office science and technology reference group and by specialist biometric system consultants. Those involved know full well that the consequence of advising the Government may be that they are disqualified from the procurement process. That has been transparent, and everyone knows that. 
I can reassure the Committee that we have taken the best possible advice in this area, in the knowledge that British Governments, and Governments throughout the world, do not have the best track record of delivering IT programmes. We have all learned a lot in the last 10 years or so, and I submit that the Government are getting better at such programmes. There are still some legacy problems from projects and contracts agreed some time ago, but we must admit to the number of significant IT projects and bits of technology that work very effectively every day. 
In response to the question of what trials are anticipated or planned, I can say that much larger trails are required fully to test the performance of biometrics for a population the size of the United Kingdom. They will preferably involve more than 1 million individuals. Large-scale testing is envisaged during the early phase of the implementation of the ID card scheme, and will determine the final design of the scheme—as hon. Members would expect us to proceed. That is substantially why it is an enabling Bill. The legislation before the House will enable the scheme to be introduced, but it would be wrong to commit public money to all the further detailed and very expensive testing without the legislation first being in place. That is why the Government are proceeding on this basis, recognising that it needs to be an incremental process. 
We also recognise that using biometrics on such a scale is new, but there are programmes already using the technology successfully. The hon. Member for Woking probably mentioned all of them, but I will try to respond to his question with more information. For example, negative matching to avoid multiple identity enrolments is a common feature of existing biometric systems, including, not surprisingly, the police national automated fingerprint identification service. NAFIS holds more than 5 million sets of prints, and more than 500,000 crime scene maps. The asylum seeker application registration card, ARC, uses fingerprint technology for all asylum seekers coming through the asylum screening units in Croydon. Cards are issued with the holder's fingerprint biometric encoded on a chip in the card. Other examples include the FBI system. That is the largest in the world and contains the fingerprints and criminal history information of more than 47 million subjects. The United Arab Emirates has a database of more than 350,000 iris scans. We are also launching a fast-track immigration clearance system—known, I think, as ''Operation Iris''—using iris recognition technology for foreign nationals who are resident here or are frequent travellers. We are testing that through certain ports of entry. 
We have already stated that our best estimates are that the annual cost of issuing biometric passports will be £415 million by 2008. Our best estimate of the additional costs of introducing a biometric ID card  alongside the passport is £85 million, including the cost of recording, matching and storing three types of biometric information. 
I say to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam that that is the best information that I have, and I apologise that it does not answer his desire for better information. I give him an unequivocal undertaking that when we get better information, we will share it. We have no interest in keeping such information to ourselves. If the system is to work, it will need to be introduced incrementally. That incremental process will have consequences, which we will need to share. Principally, the people of the United Kingdom, who will have to pay for this, will have to have faith that the money is being invested appropriately. We will have to come back to Parliament and say, ''Have faith in making the scheme compulsory.'' What would be the purpose of keeping the information secret? There would be none. 
It so happens that that is the best information that we have at the moment. There is no other way to dress that up. I would be sorry if Committee members felt that, with that amount of information at this stage, they could not continue in their support. However, I suspect that nobody will withdraw their support because of the presence or otherwise of that information. 
As far as further reports on the progress of biometric developments are concerned, we will report back to the Home Affairs Committee, which has been significantly helpful in this process and made a very important contribution during the consultation. We have a duty, beyond that arising from our accountability to Parliament, to keep the Committee informed. It raised some of the better questions about biometrics in the report and it deserves a response. We have a reporting matrix in the Home Office that I check regularly to ensure that we respond as we said we would to all the issues raised by the Committee and that we are still on track to continue to do so. Over and above all that, the identity cards programme is subject to the regular Office of Government Commerce gateway reviews. 
I am grateful to the hon. Members for Newark, for Woking and for Sheffield, Hallam for making their points so widely on biometrics. I hope that my response, which was intended to deal with the general points that they made, has been sufficient. I now turn to other points that deserve a response.

Humfrey Malins: My mind goes back to my amendment and to the article by Philip Johnston in The Daily Telegraph about the need for eight fingerprints. I do not know whether the Government are saying, ''Yes, that is right'', or , ''No, that is wrong.''

Des Browne: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, he should be patient, as amendment No. 152, which he tabled, relates directly to that point. Presumably, that thought engendered that amendment, which I shall respond to specifically. However, I should say that I intend to deal quickly with the amendments because none of the hon. Gentlemen who made contributions  argued them in any detail. I would be wasting the Committee's time if I argued in detail in response to arguments that were not put forward.
I have been asked about what happens in other countries, and I shall give the best information that I can. Our European partners are also considering closely the role that biometrics can play in securing identity. I risk encouraging my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) to think that she has at last found the link to creeping integration in Europe that she seeks. Twenty-one of the 25 EU countries have ID cards. That seems to me to provide an unequivocal answer to a question that we may need to address later, which is whether the legislation is compatible with the European convention on human rights. Only the UK, Ireland, Denmark and Latvia do not have identity cards, and we are not alone among them in considering introducing them. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Woking says from a sedentary position that common law countries do not have ID cards. That argument contains a spurious distinction; I do not understand why the people who make it think that it somehow means that identity cards would be unsuitable for this country. We were a common law country during both world wars and we had identity cards then; that did not destroy our common law system. A common law system and identity cards are not incompatible. 
That is another of those arguments that people assert and then walk away from, leaving the argument standing as if it were somehow conclusive. They say, ''Common law countries do not have them,'' and they then think, ''I have made my argument, so now I can go.'' I never understand that. To be fair to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam, he at least tried to put some flesh on an argument of this nature about written constitutions yesterday, but he is the first person I have ever known attempt that.

David Curry: Some countries do have identity cards, but they are not necessary compulsory. My wife is a French citizen. She is not domiciled in the United Kingdom, but she is resident here. Many years ago, her identity card expired and she found it impossible to get a new one. She asked whether the authorities would take her passport in evidence. They said that they would not, because it was un titre de transport and not evidence that she existed. When she needed to renew her passport, that was done without identity card evidence being produced. Therefore, the system in France is much more voluntary than that which the Minister has, very honestly, said that he envisages for the UK.

Des Browne: I am no expert on the details of identity card systems around the world. I suspect that if the right hon. Gentleman were living with his French-born wife in France rather than being resident in the UK, we might have some questions about whether to give him an identity card under this scheme. I understand the relationship between residence and identity cards.

David Curry: My wife pays tax in France.

Des Browne: The organisation of the right hon. Gentleman's family affairs and whether they are prepared to pay tax in two countries is for them to decide. I make no comment about that.
We could go into greater detail for other purposes about voluntarism and compulsory cards. Some countries have voluntary cards and others have compulsory cards. It is interesting that the concerns that some people express about a creeping process associated with identity cards is not supported by evidence in any countries that have them. Most of the countries that had voluntary cards still have voluntary cards; they did not progress to compulsory cards. 
In the EU, 21 out of 25 countries have ID cards. Enhanced security features for passports are a priority for our international partners, and we will launch a British passport incorporating a facial biometric later this year. Across the world, there is a drive for more security. The Italians, the Spanish, the Greeks and the Portuguese already record fingerprints during the identity card issuing process, and some of them record the fingerprint on the card. There is an increasing interest in the role of iris recognition; the Germans are particularly keen to explore that. Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden are closely examining incorporating biometrics in an identity card. Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany are running visa trials involving biometric registration. EU member states routinely fingerprint asylum seekers. A number of non-European countries also use biometrics: Hong Kong and the Philippines use fingerprint biometrics in their identity cards. Around the world, biometrics are increasingly being used for this purpose. 
That sets the importance of the Bill in the appropriate context for the UK in economic terms, because this is a serious opportunity. It would be a dereliction of the Government's duty if we did not play our part in ensuring that we moved at the pace of developments being made across the world. Apart from anything else, there will be increasing opportunities from around the world for companies to develop expertise and sell it on internationally. The UK is constantly accused of being too late in some of those technological areas, but recently we have got much better in that regard, and we should not lose that. 
Amendment No. 152 would mean that an individual might be required, for the purposes of renewing a card under clause 9, to allow not just fingerprints and other biometric information about himself to be taken and recorded, but all his fingerprints. The hon. Member for Woking and those who support him should be satisfied that the amendment is not necessary, as we could already require any biometric that the Secretary of State thinks fit for the purposes of verifying the information placed in the register. It is our intention to use not eight but all 10 fingerprints for that purpose. That is how the biometric trial was configured, and that is what we intend for the future, for the obvious reason that that increases security. 
It is not surprising that the Government's view is that the hon. Gentleman's amendments would severely limit the benefits of the scheme and represent serious threats to its security. I could go on to explain why, but the hon. Gentleman knows fine well why, because it was his intention that they should. It is the intention of the Government to preserve security and the correlation between biometrics and the information on identity gathered from persons in the way that I explained. 
A further consequence of those amendments is worthy of note: they would restrict the incorporation of biometrics of the future in the Bill. The fact is that we accept that this technology, although proven to be effective in large-scale trials and operations, is comparatively young. In future, we may develop biometrics that are superior to, or more convenient than, the best biometrics that we can gather at present. If the Bill were tied to a particular biometric technology, it would not be possible to take advantage of any new technologies without further legislation. That would be an inappropriate and inadvisable position for the Government to allow the scheme to get into. 
For all those reasons, an if hon. Members are satisfied that I have responded sufficiently and appropriately to the issues that they have raised, I invite the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam to withdraw his amendment, which I resist.

Richard Allan: I join other hon. Members in welcoming you the Chair, Ms Anderson.
I compliment the Minister once again on being sharp enough to rumble the Liberal Democrats' cunning plan to derail the Government's scheme for identity cards. His summing up was interesting, in that he was quite clear that there is still huge uncertainty on the subject. That is why we wanted to debate it in Committee. He set out an interesting additional argument for proceeding with biometrics: the US Federal Government defence spending argument. There has been a long-running debate between British and American hi-tech companies about the fact that that US Government use such spending to shove contracts the way of American companies and give them a boost. Such an argument might be relevant in  the context of the British debate, except that this Government do not offer any certainty that any contract will go to a UK company. Therefore, we do not know where the money will eventually go. 
I appreciated the contributions of the hon. Members for Woking and for Newark. They seemed to be arguing for a very old technology maxim—always buy version two. Never buy version one; let other people take the pain. The hon. Member for Woking referred to the point that banks looked at biometrics before coming up with chip and pin as an alternative. That is a helpful example of where the debate needs to go. 
I have started to understand that a distinction can be drawn. We could require biometrics for registration, to stop people getting on to the database unnecessarily. The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser) talked about asylum seekers; perhaps I did him an injustice. I asked who would want to get on to the asylum seeker database. Of course, no British citizen would want to get on it once, but plenty of asylum seekers might want to get on it twice, and that, I think, was his point. I can understand why biometrics might perform a gatekeeper function, but that is distinct from whether or not they will be used at the points of access to public services.

Des Browne: I am conscious that I have only just sat down, but the hon. Gentleman reminded me that I did not deal with the issue of chip and pin, which he raised. There is no reason why the ID card cannot use chip and pin. It would use it in addition to biometrics, because there is an obvious vulnerability of chip and pin: people can steal one's pin number.

Richard Allan: That is a helpful clarification of the sort that we were trying to tease out with the amendments.
There a number of different ways in which the presentation of the card might take place. In a sense, passports contain a biometric—the photo of a face—and we use our eyes to scan whether or not the face matches that of the person. We are moving towards computed biometrics—numeric biometrics rather than the other sort. However, that does not mean that on many occasions the photo identification is not the only one we need and we do not need to bother with all this other stuff. 
The concerns remain. The false matches raise concerns about security, because one of the temptations may be to allow people fast access through passport control on the basis of using biometrics, rather than checking them visibly. A false match clearly opens a potential security loophole in that somebody might go through who perhaps should not. 
The false non-matches raise different concerns. They are more about one presenting oneself for a service or for access to something, handing over the card, going through the scanning process and the operator looking up and saying, ''The computer says no.'' One might be presented with a situation where one cannot gain access to a service. It might be that one looks like the person on the card but the computer has returned a false negative. 
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Humfrey Malins: On a point of order, Ms Anderson. It is a minor point of order, which relates to the Official Report of our debates on Tuesday afternoon. I am quoted as referring to the issue of clarity of purpose. The Official Report goes on to state that I referred to
''words used by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin)''.—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 18 January 2005; c 59.] 
 I am pretty certain that I said my right hon. Friend the Shadow Home Secretary, by which I mean my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden. It is probably not a genuine point of order and I apologise, but, if nothing else, it may enable Hansard to take a note of what I said.

Janet Anderson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point of order. I am sure that Hansard will have taken note of it.

Humfrey Malins: I beg to move amendment No. 32, in clause 5, page 5, line 15, after 'may', insert 'reasonably'.
I am simply proposing to the Committee that the Secretary of State should have a requirement imposed on him that any requirements he makes are reasonable. It is wrong for anyone to suggest that they would be unreasonable. I hope I do not get punished later for saying that I do not think that the Home Secretary of this or any other Government would ask us to do something unreasonable. 
There is a strict requirement on an individual under that clause. Under later clauses, failure to attend at a specified place and time for fingerprints and photographs to be taken and recorded is punishable. It is a little wide simply to use the words 
''otherwise to provide such information as may be required by the Secretary of State.'' 
The Secretary of State should have a test of reasonableness imposed on him—a minor matter, but one that I hope the Government will take on board.

Des Browne: I am happy to reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Government will take that point on board. As a matter of fact, public law requires that of the Government. I will explain.

Humfrey Malins: I am grateful to the Minister, who has reassured us that the Secretary of State is required under public law to act reasonably. On reflection, that is right. He would be open to judicial challenge if he did not. I felt it might be more helpful to have the word ''reasonably'' in the Bill, but I can see why it is not necessary. We have had a short but useful debate and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Richard Allan: I beg to move amendment No. 81, in clause 5, page 5, line 19, at end add—
 '(7) The Secretary of State shall make provision for local facilities to satisfy the attendance requirements of subsection (5)(a). 
 (8) The Secretary of State shall make provision for home visits to people unfit to travel to satisfy the requirements of subsection (5)(a).'.

Janet Anderson: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 154, in clause 6, page 5, line 29, at end insert— 
'(c) the assistance available with transportation arrangements and costs to vulnerable or disabled individuals required to make an application.'. 
No. 99, in clause 12, page 11, line 11, at end add— 
 '(7) The Secretary of State shall make provision for local facilities to satisfy the attendance requirements of subsection (5)(a). 
 (8) The Secretary of State shall make provision for home visits to people unfit to travel to satisfy the requirements of subsection (5)(a).'.

Richard Allan: These are important amendments. Amendment No. 81 would add to clause 5, which is about the initial requirement to register for the national identity register or, as discussed, the initial requirement to attend a place to give biometric data—now for passport applications. That will have a speedy effect on ordinary citizens in the United Kingdom, even before discussion of any compulsion for the ID register as a whole.
Amendment No. 99 would do the same to clause 12, which deals with the alteration of any data on the database. There are various points at which the citizen may now be required to attend and, in particular, hand over biometric data in person. The Minister has made a case for why that must happen in person. We are, therefore, now considering a process that is quite different from the existing process for a passport application, in which everything can be done remotely. That will impact directly on the citizens of the United  Kingdom, and in considerable numbers. Estimates from the National Physical Laboratory of what we will have to deal with are of between 10,000 and 50,000 applicants per working day. 
Subsequent to the passing of the legislation—if that should happen—in the ordinary process of reapplying for United Kingdom passports, we are talking about tens of thousands of people per working day who will have to attend these centres in person. We must get more detail from the Minister about the circumstances under which that will take place. 
We are trying to deal with two groups of people with whom we are particularly concerned. Please note that my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) has put his name to the amendments. One concerns the locality of the places where one might have to register. That is a very significant concern for someone who lives in Orkney and Shetland, and for people in many other areas of the country. Potentially, the costs of applying first for a passport and then for an identity card—which we are requiring by compulsion under threat of a fine—will vary dramatically depending on where someone lives. The Government say the flat fee cost will be £85, though we shall bid them up to some other figure when all the true costs come out. The flat fee cost is also only the start. As I said earlier, a critical question is what time these offices will be open. If they open during working hours, there will be a significant opportunity cost if people have to take time off work to make the journey to the place, remain there—perhaps sitting in a queue—and then come back again. There are also the physical travel costs. 
It is important that we tease out whether the Government intend to have a sufficient network so that if somebody in Orkney and Shetland—or elsewhere, such as the Yorkshire dales—applies for a new passport in two or three years' time, they will not be told that the only way to get it is to go to a place that is so distant that it will cost them a lot of time and money. 
The Minister referred to the problems of the Passport Agency a few years ago, when the Government's requirement to register babies coincided with the introduction of a new system that caused all kinds of delay. I am sure that all Committee members are aware of the stress that constituents experienced when they were told to go to passport offices as that was the only way to get an emergency passport. People do not like having to travel to get passports; they would much rather go through the normal applications process.

David Curry: There is an important analogy here. The hon. Gentleman will recall that last year, when the Government intended that there should be voting by postal ballot only, as indeed took place, they were going to say that in each electoral district just one polling station would remain open so that people could deliver their ballot paper if they wished to do so or the ballot had been posted too late. I, among others, pointed out that there are 900 square miles of Pennines in my constituency and that only one polling station remaining open would be wholly inadequate. The  Government sensibly agreed that far more places to vote should remain open to account for those differences. Passport offices are much rarer than even polling stations, and getting to the passport office in my constituency costs almost as much as buying the passport.

Richard Allan: The right hon. Gentleman gives a helpful analogy. I enjoy travelling around his constituency on holiday, but I would not were I one of his constituents having to drive across it simply to secure a passport for a planned foreign holiday in a couple of weeks' time, or in a shorter time scale, as there are cases of people needing passports more urgently. Moving everyone to something similar to the emergency passport procedure, with physical attendance being required, will cause great resentment. Locality is a very significant point that the Government need to assure themselves on. My amendments would ensure that the Government had a duty to do so and would make that duty explicit in the Bill.
Another aspect is home visits for people who are unfit to travel so that they can satisfy the requirements to provide their biometric data. Again, we are considering an important category of people, as will be remembered with Ryanair, which was found against when it said at one airport that it did not have to provide wheelchairs for disabled passengers. Those people have a right to access Government services, but they will be told that the only way to gain that access is to provide their biometric data, even though they might not find it either easy or cost-effective to get to the centre. It is entirely appropriate in the circumstances to impose on the Government a requirement to offer a home visit service. The two amendments would do that. It may well be that, under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, the Government will have to make special provision. These are not filleting amendments, but ones that would add to the substance of the Bill. 
In probing the Government, we need to spend a little time discussing these two groups—people in remote areas and people who, in normal circumstances, are physically incapable of reaching the stations to which they must go in the first instance—in view of the penalty of not having a passport and being unable to go about their ordinary business. Post-2008, those people will face the full threat of legal sanctions and fines if they do not get to that place and offer their data. 
Those are the reasons behind the proposals. I am sure that the Minister picked them up as soon as he read the amendments and I hope he can offer us assurances on both points.

John Robertson: I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Ms Anderson, and I look forward to our deliberations today.
I want to draw attention to an error in the report of the second sitting. I shall not do so in a point of order, but just slip it in at the beginning of my speech, unlike the hon. Member for Woking. The report said that I had tabled amendment No. 115, but it was, as all Committee members will remember, amendment No. 155. I say that today because we have a lot more time  than we had on Tuesday, when I spoke rather quickly, which is probably why the Hansard people had difficulty recognising the accent and realising what the number was. I hope that, with your indulgence, Ms Anderson, I have put the record straight. 
I also congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam on his amendments, with which I have more than a little sympathy. These are probably the first amendments that he has tabled that are not intended to wreck the Bill and instead offer something constructive, so I welcome them. 
I wish to make some points that probably enhance the hon. Gentleman's argument in dealing with people who have, or could have, problems putting themselves on the register and getting their biometrics in the register. I tabled the amendment because of information given to me by Royal National Institute of the Blind, which is more than a little experienced with people who are disabled either physically or in terms of sight. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is talking with the RNIB, because he told me so in his reply to my previous contribution, and I assume that he will continue to talk to it about some of the points that I am about to make. 
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam talked about assistance with transport and related costs. One of the points that the RNIB made very well to me was that in 59 per cent. of cases—about 10 million people—assistance with transport was required for people going on any long journeys and was sometimes needed on short journeys, because part of the problem is with pedestrian areas, not just the transport. 
I ask the Minister to look at that, because if, as the hon. Gentleman says, distance comes into play, it will be the distance for not only one person, but two. That makes a good argument and a fair case for allowing visits to Orkney and Shetland, for example, which is represented by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, who is a friend. There should be a portable centre that could go round not just the rural areas, but those such as my constituency, Glasgow, Anniesland, where there is a high concentration of elderly who cannot get about and would find it very difficult, intimidating and scary to get into the centre of Glasgow. 
On cost relating to passports, it should also be remembered that people can post their passport with a cheque and documents. They do not have to go further than the local post box. That could be done for them by a friend. Will the Minister consider that? 
I should like the Minister to go into a little more detail other than simply saying that he is discussing matters with the RNIB. I want more meat on the bones. Will he say that he will examine such issues? I do not want it to be just a matter of talk. By the time that the Bill receives Royal Assent, I want people such as the elderly and the disabled and, for that matter, those in rural areas, to be taken care of and not feel as they do in many cases that no one really cares about them.

Des Browne: I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) that we are already in contact with Dr. John Gill, the chief scientist at the RNIB. Our communication at present is principally about card design, but we are discussing with the RNIB all the legitimate issues raised by my hon. Friend, which are relevant to people with disabilities. We will, of course, communicate with other organisations that represent such people.
As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam said, the agency will need to conform to the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 that have been enhanced significantly during the Government's term of office. It is an achievement of which I, as a Minister, am immensely proud, and I wish us to conform to its standards. 
The provision should be understood in the context that we have already made the decision that all first-time applicants from 2006-07 will have to make a personal appointment. First-time applicants for passports will not be able to apply by post, for a good and sensible reason, in my view. As the Minister responsible for that decision, I would say that, wouldn't I? 
Such a process will enhance the security for passports. It will ensure that there is no risk of passports being issued to people with a false identity. We will require first-time applicants to apply in person. That is a consequence of the provision. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam referred to it earlier and may have given the impression to members of the Committee that the decision to expand the UK Passport Service offices was made to accommodate identity cards. It was not. No final decision has been made about the number of front offices that will be needed for the in-person passport nor has a decision been made whether they will be stand alone, separate offices or whether we will take advantage of a network of Government or other agency offices that already exist. There is good sense in using existing networks in accessible offices in convenient spots to undertake such work, if that can be done economically. 
The UK Passport Service's research into travel showed that most people who currently apply in person for a passport travel about 25 miles. On the basis of that research and other information, early signs suggest that between 70 and 100 offices may be needed to offer the appropriate opportunity to first-time passport applicants to attend in person. That is a different matter, but that network will be in place for the new agency that is being created to deliver the identity card, which includes the UK Passport Service and others.

David Curry: It is important to understand how the scheme will work in practice, so it would be helpful if the Minister spelled out what we now call a narrative, in the political language of the time. I wonder if I have understood him right. I will give an illustration of what might happen, but I will not ask him to be clear on the issue. In Skipton there is a modern Jobcentre Plus, or social security office, which is well equipped with modern communications. That is the sort of standing  establishment that could well be a front office for the UK Passport Service for the purposes that we are discussing.

Des Browne: The right hon. Gentleman is exactly right. I had responsibility for Jobcentre Plus for about a year when I was Minister for Work. The roll-out of the new Jobcentre Plus offices happened mostly during that time, although it is not yet completed; we were about halfway there when I moved to my present job. I am immensely pleased with how that agency has delivered a service to the public for some years now, and how it has developed open and friendly offices that are working very well.
As the right hon. Gentleman says, the offices have good, sophisticated networks of communication, and are also becoming known as established places in communities where people can go for advice. It will not surprise the right hon. Gentleman to hear that, when investment of £1.2 billion or more was being made in those offices, discussions were going on across Government about using them not just for delivery of advice on employment, training and benefits, but for other purposes, too. As Minister with responsibility for immigration and asylum, I expect that the executives of the UK Passport Service will report to me on the suitability of just such a network of offices as a possible place for enrolment centres for passports and, in due course, identity cards. The right hon. Gentleman is exactly right to say that that is the sort of network of which we should take advantage.

David Curry: To continue with the analogies, we on the Public Accounts Committee are constantly discussing the number of no-shows for, for example, hospital and general practitioner appointments. If we are to use an appointment system, the Minister needs to build into it assumptions about the propensity of people not to show up, even when it is clearly in their interests to do so.

Des Browne: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his common-sense advice. I am aware of that and, from the point of view of the making the best use of public money, we will be conscious of that fact. He will bear in mind, of course, that the UK Passport Service already has significant experience of an appointment system, although in a much more concentrated fashion. I recently had to attend at the Victoria office because I had a transaction to make, so I know from experience that the system works very well. It allowed me to be dealt with within a window of about 20 minutes. I have to say, I was surprised by how well it worked, given the amount of traffic going through the office. So, that is an experience to draw on.
The UK Passport Service conducted the biometrics trial. There are two or three important points to make about that. First, the trial included 10,000 people and revealed a significant amount of information, although not yet enough for us to be absolutely certain how the enrolment system should work. However, the trial has informed further deliberations. Also, the trial required biometric enrolment from 700 disabled people so that we could do just what hon. Members are encouraging me to do: identify the problems with the  process for disabled people. When we move to the much bigger trial, which will involve in excess of 1 million people, a substantial proportion of those people will have to be disabled. 
My final point about the passport biometrics trial is that part of that trial involved a mobile enrolment unit, which was put in this very building—in the car park of the Palace of Westminster—so that hon. Members could go and experience the process. That way, their understanding of it would be informed by their experience. That has happened in various locations, including some rural locations, so that the information and evidence that will inform the decisions that need to be made could be gathered. I trust that my answer has assured Committee members that the Government have thought about such issues, and that we were on to them before we started discussing the amendments. I suspect that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland appreciate that. 
I shall deal with the amendments quickly, given that I have, broadly, responded with the reassurance that such issues are priorities for the Government in planning the enrolment process. The intention of amendments Nos. 81 and 99 is to place a requirement on the Secretary of State to make provision for local facilities and for home visits for people unfit to travel to satisfy the application requirements of clause 5 and the notification requirements of clause 12. Amendment No. 154 would require an order to set out 
''the assistance available with transportation arrangements and costs to vulnerable or disabled individuals required to make an application.'' 
As I hope has been made clear, there is a recognition that there are groups with particular needs, and we are considering developing ways to meet those needs as we design the system. We are proposing that enrolment centres should be located around the UK. It is intended that they should be local and convenient to everyone, but we do not need to write that into the Bill, partly because the definition of ''local'' is unhelpful; it does not fit with the different travel patterns for which we need to cater. People regularly travel to work; it may be more convenient to place enrolment centres there. Such considerations are just as important as where a home is situated; being local to residence is not necessarily that helpful. 
We also need to balance such decisions against the cost of establishing a centre without a large enough catchment area to be economic. It is too early to say what that might be, although we have some information to work with and we will know about the early experience of the new UK Passport Service locations. 
Other Government offices, including Jobcentre Plus offices, do not have a legal requirement to provide local offices, but they do so because that makes sense for their users and themselves. I recollect that as we rolled out Jobcentre Plus, we had continuing discussions with Members of Parliament about their constituencies and the best configuration of offices—whether a full Jobcentre Plus office was needed or whether other Government or local authority offices could provide the service. That degree of flexibility  needs to be kept, and what happened with Jobcentre Plus is a good example of how such flexibility could benefit the provision of the service. 
On the question of registering people through home visits, we are conscious that such enrolment must be convenient. We are making provision to register people who live in remote areas or are unfit to travel. However, it would not be appropriate to write a duty to provide such visits into the Bill, as they are one of a range of options that we are considering. Registering through home visits raises security issues that would need to be overcome. 
I have already alluded to another option: mobile enrolment centres, which we recently tested as part of the biometrics trial.

David Curry: Will the Minister bear public libraries in mind? Libraries have moved on enormously; many have very good computer connections. They are used by a large number of older people learning how to use computers, and have extensive facilities. In areas with no other obvious facilities, it might be worth while using libraries to register people.

Des Browne: I will, of course, bear public libraries in mind. I was discussing just that issue with the chief executive of the UK Passport Service in connection with the programme to which I made reference earlier. We need flexibility. There are any number of possibilities, and that very fact argues against the notion that we should be as restrictive as the amendments would make us. Shortly after the enactment of the Bill, we might regret amending the provision.
The requirement to set out in the order what assistance would be available to the vulnerable or disabled is not necessary. The Bill already allows us, under clause 37, to make regulations setting variable fees for applications, for example for those on low incomes. Requiring such assistance to be written into the order for compulsion will make it difficult to change what the assistance will be as user needs change over time, harming those that the amendment is intended to help.

John Robertson: Would the variation in charges include or take into consideration the cost of travel?

Des Browne: I am not going to say now that we could be as flexible as that and have a system of charges that covers every eventuality. However, my hon. Friend should bear in mind that the scheme is configured in such a way that we would not have to register every single person in the country in the same way if we did not want to. We might not need to take biometrics from some people at all. It might be pointless to do so; we might come to the view that it is not necessary to take biometrics from people over a certain age. We will need the flexibility to do such things as we move forward. We might also conclude that taking biometrics from people with certain  disabilities would be so disruptive and inconvenient of their lifestyle that we do not need to do it. We would need to address that in regulations. That is another reason why we need an enabling Bill; we might need the flexibility that allows us to do what I have described.
As I keep on saying, the success of the system will depend substantially on it being able to move to full compulsion on the basis that the people of the country support it. It will have to be able to respond to such logical and ordinary everyday issues. Such decisions will need to be made, but I am not going to make them as I speak to Committee members now. I am asking the Committee to give me the flexibility in the regulation-making powers to be able to respond to just those human situations. 
A lot of common-sense decisions need to be made about this process so that we can take it forward. It is not intended to be a sledgehammer; I do not see all the people of this country as nuts and the Bill as a sledgehammer to hit them with, to adopt the earlier reference of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam. 
My argument against these well intended amendments is that, unfortunately, they would unnecessarily constrain us from doing the things that we are already planning to do with greater flexibility. I ask that hon. Members do not press them.

Richard Allan: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland for his sympathy for the spirit of my amendments. I still have particular concerns about the remoteness issue. However, I welcome the Minister's final comments about the ways in which biometrics could be applied selectively; that is important.
On the remoteness issue, the ultimate test is that which will be applied by my hon. Friends the Members for Orkney and Shetland and for St. Ives (Andrew George). Liberal Democrats seem to be good at winning the bits at the end of countries; it is winning the parts in between that we find more challenging. My hon. Friends will want to have more to say about this issue. 
Although I may decide to come back at a later stage with better amendments on the same issues, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
The Chairman, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of the debate on the amendments proposed thereto, put forthwith the Question, pursuant to Standing Orders Nos. 68 and 89, That the clause stand part of the Bill. 
Question agreed to. 
Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 - Power of Secretary of State to require registration

Patrick Mercer: I beg to move amendment No. 33, in clause 6, page 5, line 30, at end insert ''without reasonable excuse''.
This clause deals with the power of the Secretary of State to require registration. The amendment relates to subsection (4), which currently states: 
 ''An individual who— 
(a) contravenes an obligation imposed on him by provision made under subsections (2) and (3), or 
(b) contravenes a requirement imposed on him under section 5(4) in connection with an application made in pursuance of such an obligation, 
shall be liable to a civil penalty not exceeding £2,500.'' 
The amendment is a simple one. We believe that, after the phrase ''an individual who'', the words ''without reasonable excuse'' should be inserted. Why we wish to do so is fairly simple. Currently, the clause means that when someone fails to answer the compulsion to register, they will pick up a penalty of £2,500. Surely there must be reasonable excuses why people might not be in a position to register? For instance, if someone were on their death bed, would that be a reasonable excuse for not going along with this part of clause 6?

Des Browne: It sounds like it.

Patrick Mercer: It feels like it.
What about those who are working offshore? What about those who are working abroad? What about those who are in the middle of military service abroad? I could go on, and no doubt I will. 
An individual should be able to offer a reasonable excuse as to why they are unable to comply with this part of clause 6, and therefore not pick up the civil penalty of £2,500. That is a simple inclusion. It makes a huge amount of sense, and I have no doubt that the Minister will agree with my reasoning.

Humfrey Malins: There come moments during the passage of any Committee when the Opposition feel a surge of optimism. That moment has arrived. I have a feeling that the Government will rather like this amendment, which has been so well proposed by my hon. Friend.
We know—and my hon. Friend said—that the clause provides a power to require an individual to apply to register. The registration could be compulsory whether or not a person applies for a designated document. Under the clause, as he said, if a person contravenes, they will be subject to a penalty. 
As the Minister knows, in the criminal law in this country, some offences involve what is called ''strict liability''. Such examples include crossing a red traffic light, and speeding; one has either done or not done such a thing. There are many offences for which there is some form of defence. The clause does not currently lay down any form of defence. 
I will pose one or two queries that I have about certain little details of the clause. Clause 6(1) states:
 ''The Secretary of State may by order impose an obligation on individuals''. 
 It would be helpful to hear from the Minister how the individuals will receive notification of an obligation that has just been imposed upon them. That is closely linked to whether or not a reasonable excuse is involved. 
I imagine the Minister will make an announcement in Parliament in relation to a group of individuals imposing some form of obligation requiring registration under the clause. That would possibly be reported in the press, but there are those who neither take newspapers nor listen to the media. Therefore, the question of how he is able to notify a series of individuals of a particular group about the obligation that has been imposed upon them is an important one. 
This is a narrow point but, at some stage, the Minister might impose an obligation on individuals of a description that might cover those aged 16 and 17. It would be helpful to know how he will communicate with such persons. Will he communicate to the individual concerned—the person aged 16 or 17—or to the parent or guardian of that person? Where will the penalties bite in relation to 16-year-olds if there is a failure? 
My hon. Friend the Member for Newark made the realistic observation that someone who is terminally ill might, indeed, have a reasonable excuse not to fulfil the order that has been imposed on them. There are classes of people who may well have a reasonable excuse. I remind the Committee that the obligation is to make an application and the applicant is told of the time when the requirement arises and the period after that time when the application must be made. In his response, can the Minister help us on the nature of timings? 
For example, I assume that when an announcement is made, it will be that as from a certain date some time ahead—one assumes that it is going to be months rather than days or weeks—there will be an obligation on a class of people. Can the Minister help us on timings, and also on the second question arising from that, which is how long after the requirement comes into effect is it likely that the person will have to comply with the obligation imposed on him or her? Apart from the categories mentioned by my hon. Friend, there are others who may not, through no real fault of their own, comply with the obligation imposed on them. I have mentioned 16-year-olds and the ill, but there are others who can neither read nor write and those who are aged and confused. 
The Minister and his Department will clearly take a proper and sympathetic attitude towards such people. It is impossible to consider that he would start to fine a series of people who were, for example, too confused to register, as they have to do. I cannot consider that he would enforce a penalty for a failure to register against somebody who was abroad for a period. We do not have to go through today all the classes of people who might have, in our language, a reasonable excuse for not complying with the obligation—there are other amendments concerning the levels of moneys payable—but the Minister would be wise to accept our amendment. It would make it clear that the clause  refers to contravening the obligation without reasonable excuse rather than simply contravening it. That would give the Minister and others some form of discretion and does not make it a strict liability offence. Many would be unfairly punished if it were such an offence.

Des Browne: The reassurances that the hon. Member for Woking requires of me are grossly premature in respect of the process. The clause comes into effect in terms of compulsion only if there has been a super-affirmative process, including the debating of the Government report by Parliament, and a super-affirmative order. In that context, there will be plenty of opportunity for the Government to explain to Parliament exactly how they are going to move from the non-compulsory stage to the compulsory stage. The groups affected and the timetable will have to be specified in the order, which will be fully debated before Parliament.
The super-affirmative process in clause 7 will ensure that a report is published and debated and made before the order itself. Depending on who is affected by the order, the Government will be required to take all reasonable steps to ensure that they are aware of the obligation. I am not therefore in a position now to answer the hon. Gentleman's question about days and time, but I am sure that he understands why. All of this will have to be dealt with in significant detail before Parliament agrees to move to compulsion. I have more sympathy with the other point that he made.

Humfrey Malins: It is disappointing to be told that discussing problem issues in the Bill is premature. If the Minister accepts that there are problem issues, they should be attended to now. I do not see how a debate by Parliament in due course can or will cover the issues that I have raised—namely, the issue of without reasonable excuse, which should be in the Bill, but also that of those classes of people who, given the Bill as it stands, would offend when, in truth, no reasonable person would think that they had.

Des Browne: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman if I have inadvertently misled him. I was responding to his request for details of the time scale. I am sure that he is reassured that that was premature and will have to be debated in some detail before a step can be made towards compulsion.
The hon. Gentleman rightly identifies that I have some sympathy with the other point he made. I appreciate that Members seek to raise concerns by way of amendment and of expansion on that. First, however, it would not be feasible to require the Secretary of State, before imposing a penalty, to satisfy himself that someone who had breached a requirement did so intentionally or without reasonable excuse. In practice, these penalties will be imposed in a unilateral exercise of discretion, not subsequent to some kind of hearing. 
Secondly, the objection stage would be open to a person to raise reasonable excuses. The Secretary of State would take such excuses into account and has the power to cancel or reduce penalties. The hon. Members tabling this amendment—which would introduce the qualification of ''without reasonable excuse''—seek something similar in amendment No. 117, which adds the fault element of ''intentionally'' to the civil penalties in clause 12. 
I recognise that the answer thus far may not completely reassure those hon. Members, but I am aware of their optimism. I undertake to consider whether there are ways in which it can be made clear in the Bill that the Secretary of State must take into account—I quote—''reasonable excuses'' at the objection and appeal stage. I should stress, however, that such an amendment would relate to grounds of objection and of appeal. As I explained, such a requirement would not be practical at the stage at which the civil penalties are imposed. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentlemen and allows them not to press the amendment.

Patrick Mercer: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. I think that my hon. Friends and I are more reassured by what he said. We will be interested to hear what comes up in clause 12 under amendment No. 117. In the light of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Janet Anderson: May I say that, for the convenience of the Committee, I intend to suspend the Committee for a comfort break of 20 minutes at about 5 pm?

Humfrey Malins: I beg to move amendment No. 130, in clause 6, page 5, line 36, leave out 'civil'.

Janet Anderson: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 34, in clause 6, page 5, line 36, leave out '£2,500' and insert '£1,000'.
No. 82, in clause 6, page 5, line 36, leave out '£2500' and insert '£50'. 
No. 35, in clause 6, page 5, line 40, leave out '£1,000' and insert '£500'. 
No. 83, in clause 6, page 5, line 40, leave out '£1000' and insert '£50'. 
No. 37, in clause 6, page 5, line 41, leave out subsection (6). 
No. 131, in clause 6, page 5, line 44, leave out 'civil'. 
No. 36, in clause 6, page 5, line 44, leave out '£2,500' and insert '£1,000'. 
No. 84, in clause 6, page 5, line 44, leave out '£2,500' and insert '£50'. 
No. 165, in clause 6, page 6, line 3, at end add—
 '(7) Unreasonable failure to comply with a request of the Secretary of State under this section shall be a summary offence to be heard before a magistrates' court with an appeal against a finding of guilt to the Crown Court.'.

Humfrey Malins: Clause 6 is important in the Bill, because, apart from setting out obligations on individuals, it provides for individuals to be subject to a civil penalty for failure to comply.
The lead amendment is No. 130. It concerns ''civil penalty'' and would omit the word ''civil''. I am sure that the Minister will have been briefed fully that there is a particular reason why I want to omit the word ''civil''. I hope that I would have thought of it anyway, but the matter was drawn to my attention by one of those who briefed me on the Bill a little while ago. The Bill refers to a civil, not criminal, penalty. Frankly, a person in receipt of such a penalty will probably regard it very much as criminal, not civil. To most normal people, ''civil'' means something like a county court judgment for a debt, but when the state—usually through the Crown—imposes a financial penalty by way of a fine, we are much more inclined to think that it is a criminal penalty. Indeed, in most people's minds, civil penalties are akin to a fine.

Richard Allan: The hon. Gentleman believes that a civil penalty is one that is written in moderate and polite tones, rather like the manner in which he speaks.

Humfrey Malins: It is terribly kind of the hon. Gentleman to say that.
We are guided towards the Human Rights Act 1998. The Minister will know what point I am about to make. For the purposes of article 6 of the European convention on human rights—the right to a fair trial—the penalty might be considered criminal rather than civil, regardless of the label attached by the Government. European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence has established that 
''for Article 6 to be held applicable, it suffices that the offence in question is by its nature to be regarded as 'criminal' from the point of view of the Convention, or that the offence made the person liable to a sanction, which, by its nature and degree of severity, belongs in general to the 'criminal' sphere''. 
The sanction, by its nature and severity, would be regarded by most right-thinking people as belonging very much in the criminal sphere rather than the civil sphere. Clause 6 will apply not only to the person who absolutely refuses to have an identity card, but to anyone who does not take the chance to apply when the voluntary window of opportunity is open to them. It might also apply to individuals who have already volunteered, but fall into a designated class, based on age or status. It is well argued that the Government should reconsider the introduction of such a harsh and arbitrary penalty system and call it at the same time a civil penalty. 
There are parallels in relation to civil penalties that I should be grateful for the Minister to deal with when he responds to what I hope will be a full debate. For example, I think that the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 has a parallel so-called civil penalty. I am now coming on to penalties and the volume of the penalties and, if the Minister could be given guidance—if not today, but during the next few  days—I should be interested to know what total sums have been imposed by way of penalties under that Act? What total sums have been received under that Act? What sums have so far been written off? 
I wish to suggest to the Minister another aspect of the use of the word ''civil''. As was pointed out to me by the group Justice, it might be sensible to remove the notion of civil penalty for non-compliance and replace it with an offence of non-compliance, with a Secretary of State's order, punishable, say, by a fine enforceable by means other than imprisonment, but levied only after a hearing before a magistrate and subject to an appeal to the Crown court. I do not support that proposition, but I put it to the Minister in the spirit of our debate on penalties. 
Having dealt with why I seek to remove the word ''civil''—principally because of the Human Rights Act—I move on to deal with amendment No. 34 and subsequent amendments in this group. Without going through the amendments in detail, I am seeking, by way of probing amendments, to have the £2,500 penalty, which to most of us would be a fine, reduced to a maximum of £1,000. I am also seeking to have the £1,000 penalty on someone who makes an application and is required to attend and give biometrics but does not do so reduced to £500. In short, I am seeking a dramatic reduction in the penalties to be imposed. Amendment No. 37 makes the same point with regard to repeat penalties, which can be imposed by the Secretary of State under this clause. 
We need to be realistic and consider the level of the penalties—£2,500 for the more serious, and £1,000 for the less serious. Realism involves examining the group of people in society who are most likely to fail through one reason or another and be subject to the penalties. Who will it be that day after day will walk into the magistrates and stipendiary courts in London to answer a summons or charge? A combination of the poor, the vulnerable and the dispossessed—those who lack some basic abilities in life that would otherwise enable them to get a paid job and live a life of comfort—will most likely be subject to the kind of failures that will bring them to court. They will fall victim to this penalty.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I apologise to my hon. Friend for walking in in the middle of his speech—he may have already covered the point that I am about to make. He has huge experience of imposing a level of fines for a whole range of offences. Would he not take into account that some relatively serious offences carry a fine of only a few hundred pounds? One has to justify the level of seriousness of the offence against other possible offences for which a fine is levied. On that scale, these figures are unduly harsh.

Humfrey Malins: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I will draw one or two of his sentiments into some of my remarks.
The top level fine is £2,500. The problem is the same when one sits in the magistrates court—95 per cent. of people appearing have not got a bean. I tease the Government, but it is all very well their saying last  week that they will introduce a wonderful new fining system in the magistrates courts and treble fines from £5,000 to £15,000. Big deal. I do not think that a fine of £5,000 has been imposed in a magistrates court for the past 20 years, so what is the point of raising it to £15,000? 
Can the Minister tell me today how many fines in the past five years have been imposed up to the maximum in a magistrates court? I bet him something that he would like to receive as a wager that there have been fewer than, to use his words, the number of fingers on his hand. In fairness, he said that in relation to Government amendments, and we know that two are coming forward at the moment with three to come. However, he has got my point. 
A fine of £5,000 has never been imposed; it is as simple as that. I make the point again that even if it had been imposed, 95 per cent. of people in magistrates courts have not got a bean. I would guess that the average fine in a magistrates court is £50, £60 or £70. The average person in a magistrates court is vulnerable, dispossessed and inadequate. We cannot fine those people £5,000, let alone £15,000. That relates distinctly to my next point. Who are the people who will get this wrong—I was about to say ''commit a crime''? The answer is the inadequate. 
I venture to suggest that when the Minister and I find out that we are required to do something under the clause, we will probably do it. We might read about it in a good newspaper; we might listen to the radio and take on board what is said; we might get a letter, and read and understand it; and we would know how to fill out the forms. So which people will find themselves the victims under the clause?

Richard Allan: The hon. Gentleman and the Minister will never be subject to the clause, because they will have applied for a passport. The sanction for them will be not obtaining it, so they will go and get it. The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful case: this clause will apply to the 20 per cent. of people who do not hold passports. The strength of his argument is that those subject to the clause are likely to be the vulnerable, the dispossessed and, in particular, the elderly.

Humfrey Malins: The hon. Gentleman is precisely right. On the subject of passports, I am terrified about the Bill becoming law, because my wife has lost the entire family's passports on three separate foreign holidays in the past 10 years.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: That is three lots of identity cards.

Humfrey Malins: I know; that would be £7,500. But the Minister understands that I am making a serious point.
Of course, there is another side of the issue that is very important. If the maximum fine is £2,500, and Bill Gates or some billionaire—or even, say, a rich drugs baron—does not co-operate in any respect with the  provisions, they will not find the odd £2,500 any trouble at all. It would be absolute pocket money, unless they are fined on a repeat basis. The Minister could tell us about that. What would it be: once a month, or once a fortnight? 
Some planning laws—I am not very good at planning—impose a daily penalty. My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) will correct me if I am wrong. I am not even sure that £2,500 a day would be a penalty to some of the richest in the world. I venture to suggest that, for a rich drug dealer or someone with a lot of backing who has evil intent, even 10 times £2,500 a year is neither here nor there. The Minister may say that that is an argument to say that the maximum penalty should be greater. We come to an issue that is very important, and that I think we will discuss later: there is no provision at all—[Interruption.] I have lost the attention of the Committee, with the exception of my hon. Friends.

Janet Anderson: Order. I know that we have been sitting for nearly two hours now, but it is only about 40 minutes until our comfort break, so I beg the indulgence of Committee Members. If they must have sedentary conversations, could they keep their voices down, please?

Humfrey Malins: What I say is particularly true given that there is no provision that I can see, in this clause or later, for the Secretary of State to take into account the means of the person who pays the penalty.
I understand that the person who imposes the penalty will have to be a junior official at the Home Office. Goodness knows what criteria they will use to impose the penalty. The whole of the Government's current thinking on fines appears to be that they are to be paid according to the means of the person concerned, and that is a throwback, as far as I can see, to the old unit fine days of 1992 and 1993. Such fines were introduced, I think, by my own party, and were an absolute disaster. I have never known such a hopeless policy. Well, that is the end of my career.

John Robertson: That sums up the hon. Gentleman's party.

Humfrey Malins: I am far too kind to respond to that; I take such comments on the chin. However, the Minister knows that I approach these matters honestly, and the truth is that it was not a good policy and it was eventually dropped, as it should have been.
The Minister also knows that the current position in our courts is that those who impose fines take into account people's means. There are problems with blanket fines because many people do not even turn up to court to say what their means are.

Des Browne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Humfrey Malins: Of course I will; I was drawing to a conclusion anyway.

Des Browne: In that case, I am sorry that I have given the hon. Gentleman the oxygen of an intervention. However, he might like to look at clause 36, as it deals with all the issues that he is concerned about.

Humfrey Malins: Clause 35 deals with appeals against penalties.

Des Browne: Clause 36.

Humfrey Malins: That is about codes of practice on penalties. I have not seen a code of practice yet; I am dealing with clause 6. We can discuss codes of practice in due course.
The Minister draws my attention to clause 36, and perhaps he is not wrong to do so. However, there is a very good argument for challenging the size of the penalties in clause 6. The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants expressed strong views about the clause and the penalties on behalf of the people for whom it cares. It states: 
 ''The bill appears to presume that the imposition of penalties on foreign nationals who fail to obtain the correct documentation is justified because such behaviour would arise solely because of a desire on the part of the foreign national to evade immigration controls. 
 However, there is now evidence that the difficulties in obtaining proper documentation arise because of the actions of unscrupulous employers, gang masters, and others seeking to exploit vulnerable groups of workers.'' 
It also states: 
 ''The threat of punitive action by the immigration authorities against some groups of migrants for their failure or inability to obtain the correct documentation is used as an instrument to strengthen the grip of the most exploitative employers over the workers concerned, and therefore runs counter to the government's intention of combating the exploitation of the immigrant labour force.'' 
When the JCWI recommends a review of the level of the penalties for non-compliance, it makes points that have not so far been raised in our debate. Although the penalties are not mandatory, it thinks that if they were imposed—by magistrates, for example—at a significant proportion of the maximum level, they would be disproportionate in respect of the earnings of many migrant workers, particularly those arriving under the sector-based scheme. They may fail to comply with registration requirements purely through oversight. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) wish to intervene? No, he chooses only to make comments from a sedentary position. As the days and hours pass by, we will look forward to hearing lengthy contributions from the hon. Gentleman. He has not yet been able to contribute at any great length.

Stephen McCabe: On a point of order, Ms Anderson. For clarity, I should state that there is a parliamentary convention that normally prohibits Parliamentary Private Secretaries from contributing in proceedings such as these. Obviously, I would not want to breach that, but if the hon. Gentleman is inviting me to disregard it, I would seek your guidance.

Janet Anderson: That is not a matter for the Chair, but Mr. Malins may wish to respond.

Humfrey Malins: Yes, I do. I held that position many years ago, and I have a funny feeling that the hon. Gentleman may be right, and if he is right I offer him my unreserved apologies. However, there was also a convention in those days that Parliamentary Private Secretaries did not make sedentary interventions, although it may well be the case that that convention has lapsed.
I know that the Minister will take on board the spirit with which I made my remarks, and I will now conclude.

Richard Allan: I have added my name and those of my hon. Friends to amendments Nos. 130 and 131 that were inspired by the organisation Liberty, which raised the issue of the meaning of the word ''civil''. We have engaged in what is technically known as a reverse Dutch auction when we bid down the Conservatives on the level of fee. We bid below them on amendments Nos. 82, 83 and 84 to draw attention to the level of fines and the way in which they will be set.
The organisation Justice assisted us with amendment No. 165, which we tabled to receive clarity about the process. As I have listened to the debate, I have become more worried, not less worried, about how fines under the clause will be imposed. We are talking about people who do not have a passport. It is important to remember that to most people, certainly in the Room, and throughout the country, the provision will not be relevant because they would have provided all the information to receive a passport. The sanction would have been no passport and they will have provided the information to avoid that sanction. 
The clause will be invoked at a point at which the Government deem the process to have gone as far as they wish it to go. Indeed, we must bear in mind that the clause could be invoked much sooner. It could be invoked at any time. The Government said that they will wait for the passport process to occur but, if they bring it forward under the super-affirmative procedure in clause 7, they can invoke the powers much earlier. For example, they could change their mind next year. We could have a different Government with a different policy, but under the Bill, they could say that they want to require everyone to register compulsorily. 
In normal circumstances, however, we shall be dealing with the rump of people who have not applied for passports. It is important to understand what will happen if those people fail to come forward, the precise nature of the process that will take place and the sort of fines that may be imposed. The clause seems to have been drafted to avoid ID card martyrs. Lessons have been learnt from the poll tax, when people refused to pay it. They went through the court process and used it as a platform to challenge politically what the Government had done. As I read the clause, I suspect that the Government are, in a defensive way, seeking to avoid such a position, and thus have come up with a scheme that is confused. 
What sort of record will be kept of someone who offends under the clause is important, as is the relationship between that and the usual proceedings in respect of a criminal record for other offences that a person might commit. Will the Minister clarify that? He said that the level of fine and the way in which it will be imposed will be at the discretion of the Secretary of State. That rings very big alarm bells. The whole thrust of human rights law is about taking matters out of the discretionary powers of the Secretary of State and putting them into the courts. That is relevant to amendment No. 165, because we are trying to establish the role of the courts in such a process. Will there be appeal procedures? Will those procedures go before the courts in the usual way? We have had a long-running debate about life sentences, in which it was made clear that, under the European convention on human rights, the Secretary of State's interference in the setting of tariffs was not appropriate. 
As I say, the thrust of the law is that politicians should be as far outside of the judicial process as possible, and I entirely agree with that. I understand from the Minister's comments that the process would mean that the Secretary of State, or his officers, would effectively be able to decide on the level of fine, manage the process and, presumably, deal with any appeals against it or objections to it. That would be very troubling indeed. I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify that issue. 
If we are to move down the route of compulsory identity cards—the Liberal Democrat position on that is absolutely clear—the citizens of this country have the right to understand at this stage its full implications. I suspect that the clause will lead to a not-trivial number of cases in the future. A significant number of citizens will be affected, either because they choose not to have an ID card and are explicitly becoming ID card martyrs, or because they fail to get one for another, less direct or explicit, reason. It seems that we are to take such citizens through a process in which the Secretary of State can issue them with a penalty notice. As the hon. Member for Woking  pointed out, people may fail to respond properly to such a notice because they do not have the means and cannot afford to pay. They may not be doing that deliberately or maliciously. 
We need a much clearer understanding of the full process and I feel very uncomfortable about leaving the clause, which would give that huge range of discretion, as it is worded. I make no personal swipe against any particular Secretary of State, but the general thrust of human rights legislation is that penalties imposed on citizens must have a sound basis in law. To satisfy our article 6 requirements, such matters should be in the hands of the courts, rather than political officials of the state. The clause seems entirely contrary to that spirit. 
I hope that the Minister can give more detail on the way in which the system will work. However, I suspect that this will be another occasion on which he will not be able to satisfy us about the rightness of the solution that he sets out.

David Curry: I want to reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Woking said. I am grateful to the Minister for referring us to the later clause, because how that works will be crucial.
I am co-chairman of the all-party group on homelessness and housing need. When we were in government, I managed the rough sleepers initiative for four years as Minister with responsibility for housing. It was very successful, supported by all parties and never the subject of political contention. However, what strikes me is that there is a significant group of people in society—I hesitate to use the word ''underclass''—who are simply not competent, and the major task is to teach them some sort of competence. 
I remember vividly that John Bird, who runs The Big Issue, said that a home is the last thing that such people need because so many things have got to come before they have the competence to live in their own home. I also remember a 16 or 17-year-old going into a Salvation Army hostel in the east of London saying to me, ''The most frightening thing that ever happened to me was being given the keys to my own little maisonette, because I was in charge and had to take responsibility.'' 
Many people who sleep rough—many of whom have bounced down from the armed forces, funnily enough—suffer from drugs, drink, mental illness and combinations of all three. If they are to be able to conform with the law, there will, with the best will in the world, have to be a mentoring system through which people can act on their behalf. They are unlikely ever to want a passport, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam said. Nothing could be more absurd than repeated appearances in court by people utterly incapable of meeting the fines levied on them and probably incapable of fulfilling the law without somebody mentoring them closely. 
I represent a northern English constituency on the edges of Bradford and Leeds. Many women among many ethnic minority populations are often not expected to take any role outside the home, and in many cases they have very limited competence in  English. We must make sure that they do not inadvertently find themselves to be unintended victims of the legislation because of cultural difficulties. 
I should be grateful if the Minister would bear the points I have made in mind when he thinks of how the measures will operate in practice. I hope he will give reassurances that he will do so. He keeps repeating that this is the only primary legislation, which gives us the opportunity to debate the subject.

Des Browne: In terms of penalties it is appropriate to look also at clauses 33 to 37 to see the provisions that relate to civil penalties that are in the Bill. With respect to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam—and I do have respect for him—it is not fair to say that there is nothing in the Bill about that when those clauses exist. I will, appropriately, not be drawn into debating them prematurely. We will come to them in due course and there will be an opportunity to discuss them in some detail. It would be inappropriate for me to do that now, despite the fact that if I were to respond to all the questions that have been asked of me, that is what I would do.
It is appropriate to set out the context to the clause, because we are getting as near to a clause stand part debate as we can in terms of these amendments. The Government's proposals, which command significant and consistent public support, are for a national ID card scheme. In time it will become compulsory, in the sense that every British citizen resident in the UK and all foreign nationals resident for more than 3 months will be required to register, if they have not already done so. 
That will not happen—and the provisions that are considering today will not become relevant—until the time is right; it will not happen until Parliament has the opportunity to debate it. That debate cannot begin until the Government are satisfied that the roll-out has already delivered significant coverage of the population, that there is clear public acceptance of the card, that no vulnerable groups would be disadvantaged, that the scheme has made a contribution to meeting its aims, and that the technology is working and trusted. 
All of the conditions that precede being able to move forward will allow Parliament, in considering the report and any order that might come from it—even if the conclusion of the report were amended—to examine all of those issues and the implications. I would not expect Parliament to make its decision unless it was satisfied in respect of all the things to which I referred. 
It is right and appropriate that the Government should set out a scheme that proceeds in that way, so that just the sorts of concerns, which are proper ones, that hon. Members bring to this debate are considered. We are talking about a vehicle and a mechanism for considering them in some detail at the appropriate time. 
Amendment Nos. 34, 35 and 36 would reduce the maximum amount of the penalties that may be imposed. There would be a reduction from £2,500 to £1,000 for a contravention of one of the requirements set out in clause 6(2) or 6(3) relating to registration.  There would be a reduction from £1,000 to £500 for a contravention of a requirement set out in clause 5(5) relating to supplying further information. There would also be a reduction from £2,500 to £1,000 for each contravention of a notice requiring a person to register, subsequent to a contravention by them of an initial requirement to register. Amendments Nos. 82, 83 and 84 would reduce all those penalties to £50. I fear that that is not an amount that would deter many people from doing anything or from not doing anything. 
I appreciate that there may be concerns that the penalties would impact disproportionately on those least able to pay, and they probably would if they were imposed at their maximum levels. However, the sums I was referring to are the maximum penalties. 
The hon. Member for Woking points out that in magistrates courts when magistrates consider the individual circumstances of offenders it is highly unlikely that they will impose the maximum penalty. I have no idea what the answer to his question is, but I know from my experience in the equivalent courts in Scotland that it is highly unlikely that magistrates there would impose the maximum level of penalties—or indeed, that sheriffs, who have a greater jurisdiction, would. 
Mr. Malins rose—

Des Browne: Let me finish the point and I will then take the intervention.
We are talking about maximum penalties and the provisions allow for lesser amounts to be imposed. How would those lesser amounts be calculated? We have to look to clause 36, which requires the Secretary of State to publish a code of practice setting out the sorts of things that have concerned Members and the matters that the Secretary of State will consider when determining the amount to be paid. That code of practice will, in turn, be laid before Parliament.

Humfrey Malins: We look forward to the code of practice. Whatever the code says, however, am I not right that when the Secretary of State imposes the penalty he will not have before him any details whatever to assist him about the—for want of a better word—defendants' means, abilities or lack of them?

Des Browne: That does not necessarily follow. In fact, that is highly improbable. That will not be the case, I suspect.

Humfrey Malins: Why?

Des Browne: Because the code of practice will set out the markers that the Secretary of State has to take into account. It is unlikely in the extreme that any Secretary of State will set out markers that do not include just that information, particularly against the background where almost all penalties imposed in the courts have to be imposed, by law, with an understanding of a person's ability to pay. The ability to pay the penalty will have to be one of the factors that the Secretary of State takes into account. Inquiry will have to be made of a person's circumstances before the penalty is set.

Richard Allan: Can the Minister inform the Committee whether there is any likelihood of us catching sight of some draft codes of practice, either before we reach the relevant clauses or before the Bill becomes law? This is not technology dependent and, presumably, there are other models on which the codes are going to be based.

Des Browne: I will answer that question once I am in a position to do so. I will bear that in mind.
Amendment No. 36, which relates to subsequent failures to register, would fall if amendment No. 37 was accepted. Amendment No. 37 would remove clause 6(6) altogether. The effect would be that the Secretary of State would not be able to impose further fines for continued failure to register. I oppose that amendment because it sends entirely the wrong message, saying, in effect, that failure to register is not a serious matter. When the scheme eventually does become compulsory, its efficacy would be seriously undermined if people could, in effect, avoid registration by paying a one-off fine. If Members object that this provision is draconian, I would remind them that the remedy is entirely within the hands of the individual to comply with the original requirement. 
Amendments Nos. 130 and 131 would remove the word ''civil'' in two places in clause 6, in subsections (4) and (6). This is an attempt to make the offences criminal. It is a different motivation from that of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam, who tries to do exactly the same thing in amendment No. 165, informed, in my view, by a partial explanation of article 6 of the European convention on human rights. That imposes a requirement for fair trial. 
Those requirements are fully satisfied whether or not the penalty in the scheme is regarded as civil or penal in convention terms. The individual concerned is able to object to the penalty under clause 34, and to challenge the penalty in court under clause 35 and have a full hearing. Eventually, the courts will be in a position to decide on these penalties. That makes the provisions in the Bill fully compliant with article 6. 
Several penalties, as the hon. Member for Woking knows, are a well established feature of the carriers liability scheme. They have been tested in the courts against this very argument. 
He asked me for specific information on the amounts imposed under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 through civil penalties. I am not able to give him that information. I could give the Committee the maximum penalties, but that would not assist in any way. I am not able to give them at the moment, but, should they become available, I will make sure he gets them.

Humfrey Malins: The Minister mentioned the ability of the aggrieved eventually to find him or herself in court. What is probably a matter related to the debate is whether the Minister can give any assurance that, depending on the means of the individual and the nature of the excuse, he or she might have access to legal aid?

Des Browne: I am not in a position to go into that matter in any detail. However, I shall return to it and perhaps we can consider it in the context of clause 34 and other clauses.
The Government do not intend to criminalise people's behaviour under the Bill. We are introducing a system of civil penalties, so that people do not have a criminal record. Most procedures will be settled between the individuals and the Secretary of State and, when courts are involved, they will be civil, not criminal, in cases when appeals are brought. 
Amendment No. 165 would create a criminal offence—a summary offence—of failing to comply with the requirements of clause 6. No penalty is mentioned, but even if a moderate one were imposed, if the amendment were accepted a person who refused to register would have a criminal record. That is not what the Government wish and, for that reason, I shall also resist that amendment. 
Indeed, I must resist all the amendments and I invite members of the Committee to consider whether they wish to press them to a Division.

Humfrey Malins: The Minister has done his best to respond to the arguments that have been advanced, for which I thank him. Clearly, he is unable to go very far because certain matters such as the codes of practice are further down the line and we do not know some practicalities that it would be necessary for us to debate. During the short debate on penalties we have discussed the vulnerable, although he is not yet able to return to us with more detail.
I am particularly pleased by the intervention of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam, who asked a moment ago whether we might have an opportunity before the end of our discussions in Committee to see a draft code of practice, or guidance, as it might inform our debates. We shall keep a careful eye on penalties and possibly come back to such matters on Report. 
I thank the Minister for his reply. It has not satisfied us completely, although he would not expect that to be the case. However, for the moment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7 - Procedure for orders under s. 6

Richard Allan: I beg to move amendment No. 86, in clause 7, page 6, line 45, at end add—
 '(7) Orders made under section 6 shall be considered to be primary legislation for the purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998.'. 
In moving the amendment, I am relying on the fact that there is not too much joined-up government at present. That echoes a debate that took place in the context of the Civil Contingencies Bill, which was handled by the Cabinet Office. The Government sought to bring in some sweeping powers as secondary legislation and to treat them as primary legislation for the purpose of the Human Rights Act 1998. We spent a lot of time arguing fiercely against that, so, in tabling the amendment, I am not necessarily expecting the Minister to respond to it affirmatively or even in a super-affirmative fashion. I want only to tease out from him how the Human Rights Act and the provisions of the European convention on human rights will interact with any regulations made under clause 6. 
It is important to test matters a little. We seem to have an innovation under clause 7 and I would be interested to hear from the Minister other examples of when a similar procedure has been used. The Government are saying that they do not wish to come back with primary legislation when they want to make matters compulsory. The playing field has moved. When we started discussing ID cards, it was suggested that we would have two pieces of primary legislation. One would bring in a voluntary scheme and we would have the assurance that, if the Government wished to return with a compulsory scheme, it would have to be introduced with the explicit consent of Parliament at a later date. 
As I say, my initial assumption was that we would have two pieces of primary legislation, but things have moved on. The Government have come up with firm plans, which are that there should only be one piece of primary legislation, and, to satisfy those with concerns about the compulsory scheme, we have been given the clause 7 super-affirmative procedure. 
There are important distinctions to be made between primary and secondary legislation in the context of the Human Rights Act. Primary legislation requires certification; this legislation has to say that it is compliant with the convention rights. Primary legislation cannot be struck down. As the courts have recently found out with the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, they can say that they do not think legislation is compliant, but they have no ability to strike it down. We had a long debate about the sovereignty of Parliament and I remember that there were different models for human rights conventions and for incorporating human rights into law, including Canadian and Australian models, but we ended up with one that made a distinction between primary and secondary legislation.

John Robertson: Who?

Richard Allan: That was a random choice, but if my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) makes a challenge through the courts and is suddenly told that he must be subject to these orders, their status will be important if he is bringing a challenge—perhaps under article 8—asserting that the Government's measures are not proportionate or necessary in the context of the potential breach of his privacy. That would be a perfectly reasonable challenge, which we might expect to take place. At that point, the status of the regulations will be important.
In tabling the amendment, I am seeking to tease out the Minister's understanding of the status of these measures and, in particular, trying to get an answer this question: if the Bill goes through unamended and someone successfully challenges the regulations, thereby making it clear that they can be struck down by the courts in spite of the super-affirmative procedure, will the convention rights safeguards also apply to it? 
The purpose of the amendment is to try to establish the interaction between quite a serious power that the Government are to take on themselves, which is quite likely to be challenged under the convention rights, and those convention rights. In particular, the amendment seeks to achieve understanding of the distinction between primary and secondary legislation, and whether that is affected at all by the fact that we have the super-affirmative procedure. It would be helpful to understand whether there is any distinction in respect of how negative and affirmative, or affirmative-plus, procedure are treated, or whether they are all essentially the same, and whether the additional bells and whistles that we have received from the Secretary of State make any difference to the status of the regulations when they have been passed.

Des Browne: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his explanation. I shall respond quickly and in short compass to the question that he asked, because it can be answered straightforwardly. I suspect that when he hears the answer, he will not want to press his amendment.
On one view, tabling the amendment could imply that the hon. Gentleman and his Liberal Democrat colleagues acknowledge that the so-called super-affirmative procedure is almost the equivalent of primary legislation in terms of parliamentary scrutiny. However, that is not what he is saying. His amendment would limit the power of the court to quash an order made under clause 7. The Government's position is that we are confident that the Bill's provisions and the powers that it gives to make subordinate legislation are  compatible with convention rights. We see no need to limit the courts' powers of scrutiny of orders under the clause. That is the answer that the hon. Gentleman wants. I present it to him and invite him to withdraw his amendment.

Richard Allan: That is a helpful response from the Minister. He has clearly put on the record the fact that regulations presented in this way could be struck down by the courts and that the Government are prepared to go down that route because of their confidence in human rights compliance. I suspect that at some point that will be tested. We would have preferred a second piece of primary legislation, but I suspect that we are not going to get it. We need to consider some of those issues on clause stand part, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Richard Allan: It will be helpful to have a short stand part debate and I deliberately tried not to steer on to the questions that I want to ask now. In particular, it would be helpful to understand subsection (2), which is the novel part about a report being made. I would like a couple of minutes' explanation from the Minister of what he envisages being in that report. The subsection is a fairly bland statement and we are being asked to trust that it will somehow lead to a significantly more rigorous process than a normal affirmative resolution procedure—the difference being that the report has been thrown into the mix.
It would be helpful to understand the Government's intention, particularly as the Minister has said that this is a moving target and things will evolve. To what extent will we be able to roam widely in a debate on compulsory registration or will there be a normal affirmative resolution procedure with a short document attached? Either could be the case as the clause reads: there could be a comprehensive exercise or an affirmative resolution procedure with little more than a fig leaf to cover it. In the latter case, the Government could argue that they conceded that there would be extra scrutiny, when that would not be the case.

Des Browne: The principle of compulsion has already been the subject of some debate, not only on Second Reading, but during our deliberations. The clause sets out how the requirement to register will be put into effect. First, it may be worth repeating what the effect of compulsion will be. Those to whom it applies will be under an obligation to be entered in the register from a time at which they could not otherwise be subject to such an obligation. That is all: there is no compulsion to carry, no extra power for the police and no criminalisation of those who fail to meet their obligations.
In the process, the Government must first publish a report setting out their reasons for wanting to make registration compulsory, including a proposal on how compulsion would operate—for example, the categories of people to whom it would apply, the timetable for its implementation and all the other factors that I spelled out in my response.

David Curry: Is it amendable?

Des Browne: Yes, it is of course amendable.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My understanding of negative or positive procedure is that an order is laid before the House, it is considered for an hour and a half in Committee, and the only options that the Committee has are to approve or reject it—there is no opportunity to amend. Is the Minister outlining a new parliamentary procedure?
While I am on my feet, if I may crave your indulgence, Ms Anderson, the House of Lords has a convention that it does not normally vote against affirmative resolutions. Will the convention be broken in this case if the House disapproves the motion?

Des Browne: The report will need to set out exactly what the order will do and the reasons for the proposal. It will be unlike an affirmative order as we would recognise it in that the reasons will need to be given and modifications can be made—it will be amendable. On the basis of that proposal, as agreed, normal affirmative procedure will proceed.

David Curry: In practice, this is as though it would be a matter for consideration on Report, and we will all behave as if it were a Report stage. There will be amendments and then, presumably, a vote on the final document, as amended. That is the equivalent of a Third Reading.

Des Browne: This is the new procedure, which has been created by this Bill. I do not recognise it. I am always reluctant to be tempted very quickly to agree with right hon. or hon. Members, but to the extent that the right hon. Gentleman draws my attention to that analogy, he is right. In my view, the procedure allows us to have the appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny of the process while having the debate about compulsion in the context of primary legislation now, before any of the significant steps are taken. Some of  the steps will involve considerable public expenditure. This seems to be entirely the right way to proceed with the scheme.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: As the Minister says, this sounds like an entirely new procedure, which will be put on the Order Paper as an Order of the Day and debated on the Floor of the House. Therefore, it would be amendable. I do not know whether he will be able to respond to that point, but will he give me an assurance that he and his Department have discussed the matter with the House authorities and that the Standing Orders of the House will allow for such a procedure? Will they have to be altered?

Des Browne: I do not like doing this, but I will have to say candidly to the hon. Gentleman that I will need to come back to him on that issue. His question requires a precise answer, and I would much rather it if members of the Committee would allow me to give it such an answer. I promise that I will give a precise answer before the Committee reaches its conclusion.
I have said, however, what I want to say in this short clause stand part debate. I trust that I have dealt with the issues that were troubling the hon. Gentleman even though I might not have dealt with the detail. He is entitled to receive that detail and I will give it to him. I do not think that that should prevent anybody from voting on the principle of the clause. 
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Sitting suspended. 
On resuming—

Clause 8 - Issue etc. of ID cards

Humfrey Malins: I beg to move amendment No. 44, in clause 8, page 7, line 4, after ''issued'', insert ''free of charge''.

Janet Anderson: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 186, in clause 37, page 31, line 24, at end insert—
''but no fee shall be imposed for a card issued in consequence of an order by the Secretary of State for compulsory registration.''.

Humfrey Malins: Before I forget, I should say that I hope that I will remember to say at the conclusion of our debates on the clause that we hope to vote on amendment No. 43, which was debated much earlier in our proceedings and which will come up in due course.
Amendment No. 44 is very simple. It would insert the phrase ''free of charge'' after the word ''issued'', so that the beginning of the clause would read, ''For the purposes of this Act an ID card is a card which—(a) is issued free of charge to an individual by the Secretary of State''. The amendment is intended to enable us to begin what should be an important and significant debate on another major test in relation to the ID card  and the register, namely the cost that will be involved to the taxpayer, the individual and, overall, how it will be divided. 
I recall an interesting exchange that I had the day before yesterday with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam. He asked me to consider what I would do if I had a set of scales in front of me and I had to weigh on one side the prospect that a card or register would be of help in fighting terrorism, and on the other side the huge infringement on civil liberties that that might involve. I think that he was asking me where my tipping point would be. It was a very good question then, and it remains so now. I say to him again what I said to him then: there is no firm answer to that, and eventually one has to rely on instinct as to when to exercise one's judgment. It is almost like asking whether it is worth spending £5 billion to save one life. There is no human answer to that question, because our nature and our instinct say that it is worth spending everything to save one life. These conversations are very difficult. 
I begin my approach to the issue of cost by putting my question in a slightly different way: is the cost of the register—and the identity cards, readers and everything else that follows—worth it? Later, we shall ask what the cost is, and to whom, but initially I want to know whether the cost represents the best value for money. The first principal thrust of what I want to say is that the cost of the ID card scheme, the register, and everything else might amount to £5 billion. Has it been considered whether the same amount could be better spent in other ways to achieve the same objectives, in particular, the principal objective, which must be the reduction of terrorist activity? 
To put it another way, who has considered—and can the Committee consider—whether the £5 billion, or whatever the sum is, could secure our objective better if it were spent on extra police, security services, and people at our ports, airports, and customs to exercise the relevant controls? Where would the money be better spent? 
I imagine that studies have been carried out on the best-value issue. I hope that the Minister will share those studies with us and try to convince us that the card and register scheme is much to be preferred to other options that would use the same amount of money.

Chris Mole: I am somewhat confused by what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting. We are talking about ensuring full recovery of the costs of introducing ID cards, and therefore we are not talking about resources that are available from the Government purse to sustain the development and operational costs of the scheme. Given the hon. Gentleman's support for the programme, can we expect the costs to be met in the shadow Chancellor's Budget proposals? If not, it seems that his amendment is somewhat frivolous. Perhaps one could even suggest that it is wasting the Committee's time.

Humfrey Malins: I do not speak for the shadow Chancellor, and this is not a frivolous amendment. The hon. Gentleman, whose further contributions to  the debate Opposition Members—and Labour Members, I am sure—would greatly welcome, must understand that we are talking about significant issues of cost and security. As to why I am raising the matter when the costs in their entirety will be recovered from the individual, that gives rise to the question of whether I, as an individual, expect to pay £85 for a biometric passport, and whether I would prefer to have the money taken from me and spent in other ways to achieve the same objectives. That is a worthwhile aspect of the debate.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not feel that I am wasting the time of the Committee; I am sorry that he still has to be here, but he will understand the importance of debating the issues in full, and not simply gliding over them. 
I understand that the police and security services want the identity card and the register. There will come a time when the Minister will have to take us through exactly what the police and the security services have said—I hope he will seize the opportunity sooner rather than later—and trail before us the arguments they put forward. 
Specifically, have the police discussed among themselves or with Government the option of spending the money that would otherwise be spent on ID cards and the register instead on more police, more customs officers and more security services. What is the so-called best value to the police of those two options, not only in terms of money but also, more usefully, in the fight against terror?

Bill Tynan: Will the hon. Gentleman help me, because I am somewhat confused? If we take away the cost of the identity card from the individual and place that burden on the state, is the choice between whether we have more police or whether we use the money in a different way? If the individual is paying the cost of the identity card, how is there a burden on the state?

Humfrey Malins: If the individual pays for absolutely everything, as though in a private, commercial transaction, although we know that costs tend to escalate—double or treble—in a general sense the burden does not fall upon the taxpayer. The hon. Gentleman is right to that extent. Nevertheless, the question of how a particular sum could be better spent is surely worth exploring in Committee. Would the money be better spent on an ID card and register system or on other areas that could go towards the same conclusion?

Bill Tynan: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that we say to the population of the country, ''We want a contribution from you, not for ID cards, but in order to do something else, which is undetermined at present''? Is that what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting?

Humfrey Malins: No, I am not directly suggesting that. I remind the hon. Gentleman, whose experience is not inconsiderable, that in Committee it is worth trailing arguments. One of the arguments that I am trailing this afternoon is value for money. Whether the global sum is £5 billion or £1 billion, whatever the amount or wherever it comes from, everything boils down to price and cost and money best spent.
I quote the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), the shadow Home Secretary, on Second Reading: 
 ''My fourth test is the cost-effectiveness of the scheme . . . The introduction of the Bill saw the cost of the ID card scheme almost double overnight, from £3 billion to £5.5 billion.''—[Official Report, 20 December 2004; Vol. 428, c. 1964.] 
So, let us look at the question of cost and go back a little in time. Irrespective of who pays, the whole issue of the cost of this scheme needs to be looked at, not only in the interests of the taxpayer generally, but also in the interest of the individual who may be called upon to pay some or all of the cost. 
The hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) shakes his head as though the issue of cost is irrelevant. I am proposing to tease out of the Government, as the Home Affairs Committee—unsuccessfully I think—sought to do, what they regard as the likely cost of the scheme.

Bill Tynan: I do not want to labour the point, but the hon. Gentleman said that I was shaking my head. I was doing so in disbelief. I find it very difficult. If there is no cost to the Government, but the cost is to the individual, how could the money be used by the Government if no cost exists at the present time?

Humfrey Malins: The hon. Gentleman—in part and quite accidentally—misses the point. We are talking about cost, and I am concerned on behalf of the individual as to whether his or her money represents best value for money.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend is doing the Committee and nation a service in what he is saying.
It depends on whether the full cost really is recovered, because if it is not, there is a general cost on the taxpayer. However, even if it is recovered, it will matter a great deal for those on benefits, those receiving purely the state pension and those just above that level on very low income, because in one case the state will pick up the tab, but in another the cost will become a burden on some of our constituents, particularly youngsters who have just started in their first job. It will really be a burden if the cost, which is estimated at the moment at £85, is £150 or £200 by the time that the card comes in.

Humfrey Malins: I am disappointed to see Labour Members smiling and even laughing at the sensible comment made by my hon. Friend, who rightly says that if the cost falls to certain individuals, they might find it difficult indeed.
In July 2002, the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) asked the following written question:
 ''To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the (a) costs and (b) change in the levels of crime which would result from a compulsory national identity card scheme; and if he will make a statement.'' 
The then Minister, the right hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes) in her reply, insofar as it relates to costs, referred to a consultation paper and said: 
 ''The paper includes a number of estimates of what a scheme would cost, depending on the sophistication of the card. A reasonable estimate would be that a scheme would cost around £1.3 billion over a 13-year period covering the three years it would take to set up the necessary information technology systems and the 10-year period for which the first cards would be valid. 
 This would include much more stringent identity checks than currently apply for passports and driving licences in response to increased levels of fraudulent applications. 
 It would also include the costs of using biometric information (fingerprints or iris images) which would uniquely link the card holder with a card.'' [Official Report, House of Commons, 10 July 2002; Vol. 388, c.1066-67W.] 
Inasmuch as we were clear about anything after that, we had a figure from that Minister that I infer—I hope that the present Minister can take us through it with some care—was her proposition for the cost of the entire scheme, ranging from the introduction of the register and set-up costs to the card and the readers. 
I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) is not serving on this Committee. He was and remains a distinguished member of the Home Affairs Committee and in a hearing of that Select Committee, he had a most interesting exchange on the question of costs with a gentleman called Mr. Stephen Harrison from the Home Office, the head of the identity card policy unit at the Home Office, who was examined. I will paraphrase certain bits. However, the hon. Gentleman began by asking, 
 ''How much is all this going to cost?'' 
I hope that you can take it from me, Ms Anderson, that in his first answer no figure was given, but a number of points were made. 
The next question from the hon. Gentleman was: 
 ''On the basis of a voluntary arrangement and then a compulsory one, what at the end of the day would be the total estimated cost?'' 
The answer was: 
 ''We then have the set of costs there, as I have mentioned. We then have a period at which cards would be issued to the population and the Government's policy position on that is that those costs should be recovered through charges.'' 
The hon. Gentleman then asked: 
 ''But could you just give us the figure of what it is estimated to be at the end of day, the cost involved, whoever meets the bill? We will come to that in a moment, but what do you believe is the sum which we should be working on if it comes from both the voluntary stage and the compulsory stage? What is the round figure?'' 
The answer was: 
 ''I think in terms of looking at that, forgive me for trying to give you a sort of lengthier answer on this, I think it depends at what point one draws the line because in a sense the scheme''. 
The hon. Gentleman interrupted: 
 ''At the end of the day, if Parliament approves, what would be the round figure? Is that difficult to answer?'' 
Mr. Harrison responded:
 ''What is the end of the day in that sense? Even if you reach a point''. 
The Chairman intervened: 
 ''Mr Harrison, in the Government's consultation document last year you published a figure £3,145 million''— 
I take that to be £3.1 billion. The answer was ''Yes''. The Chairman carried on: 
 ''Is that still your estimate?'' 
The answer was: 
 ''There was actually a range of figures''— 
I love that phrase— 
''which were published and what that was based on was adding costs and we talk about the period at which you cut it off.'' 
The Chairman asked: 
 ''Is that our best figure?'' 
The answer was: 
 ''We have better estimates of some of the detailed costs that have gone on.'' 
The hon. Member for Walsall, North asked: 
 ''You seem to be rather evasive about this. I understand you are not a politician''. 
In due course, Mr. Harrison, who clearly gave his best evidence, said: 
 ''On the consultation paper there was a range of costs and it varied from about £1.3 to about £3.1 billion. We believe that if you look at a comparable costing for the period of that scheme, the consultation period envisaged which was 13 years, then our cost estimates still lie within that range.'' 
The hon. Gentleman asked: 
 ''Which range? Quote the figure yourself. Which range?'' 
The answer was: 
 ''The 1.3 to 3.1 billion.'' 
Finally, the hon. Gentleman said: 
 ''You have been very cautious, Mr Harrison. Congratulations.'' 
If nothing else, that illustrates—

John Robertson: That the hon. Member for Woking is wasting time and can read.

Humfrey Malins: I hear a sedentary intervention from the back of the Room. If the hon. Gentleman does not want to intervene, I shall give way to the hon. Member for Reading, West.

Martin Salter: I do not wish to waste time, but I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to his comments during the programme motion debate. He made the not unreasonable plea that more time should be made available for the consideration of this very important Bill. I have sat and witnessed a blatant filibuster. I want it on record that Labour Committee members are perfectly aware of the tactics being adopted by the Opposition.

Janet Anderson: Order. If the hon. Member for Woking had been filibustering, I would have called him to order by now.

Humfrey Malins: I am sure that the hon. Member for Reading, West did not intend to insult, or to cast any slur on, the Chair of this Committee. He will know, through his vast experience and the major contributions that he has made to Committees over the years, that matters relating to filibusters are for the Chair. If the Chair believes that there is a filibuster, the Chair will intervene. 
Mr. Salter rose—

Humfrey Malins: I shall give way in a moment. If the hon. Gentleman resents the fact that I am talking at some length about the question of cost, and I am staying in order in so doing, that says more about his desire to get away from the Building than about his desire to commit himself to a detailed examination of the Bill that is before him.

Martin Salter: I stand corrected. Ruling that a filibuster has taken place is, of course, a matter for the Chair. However, as a Member of the House I have every right to express my view on whether Members of any party are seeking to prolong arguments and debates longer than necessary. The exchanges between my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North and Mr. Harrison could have been summarised in about 20 seconds to make the point. I merely wanted to put that on the record.

Janet Anderson: Order. I say to the hon. Member for Woking that he has remained perfectly in order and that is why he has not been called to order. However, I would appreciate it if hon. Members on both sides of the Committee kept their contributions as succinct as possible, as we still have a great deal to discuss.

Humfrey Malins: The hon. Member for Reading, West says that the comments from the Home Affairs Committee debate could have been summarised in 20 seconds. I am sure that the relevant parts of his intervention could have been summarised in even less time. If the hon. Member for Reading, West believes that the hon. Member for Walsall, North was not doing his parliamentary duty, I sure that he will give him an appropriate rocket.
Some outside bodies are very interested in the question of costs and who is going to pay them. It is interesting to note that a number of polls have asked people what their support was for an ID card; many polls even showed 85 per cent. support. 
However, only 48 per cent. polled by MORI were prepared to pay for the card; only 20 per cent. were willing to pay more than £25. The Minister ought, this afternoon, to give his best estimate of the total cost of the whole scheme. He also ought to be able to tell us which parts will fall on the individual. Will all individuals have to pay the same? I think that there is a point to be made on that by him. Will the card cost about £85? 
According the report of Privacy International, the Government estimated in 2002 that the scheme would cost about £3.1 billion. When, in 2004, the Home Affairs Committee asked the Home Secretary to clarify the exact amount, he refused, citing commercial secrecy. I believe that by the time the final Bill was published in November, the Government had acknowledged that the cost of the scheme over 10 years would be £5.5 billion. Apparently, industry specialists have warned that the complexity and uncertainty of the scheme's architecture and technology could drive the cost even higher.

John Robertson: The hon. Gentleman has vast Committee experience: he is stretching his points somewhat, but always within the bounds of what is right. I detect something from what he is saying today. Is he not in fact against the Bill in its entirety? He is not in favour of ID cards. Will he come out and say that?

Humfrey Malins: No, I will not. I pay a corresponding tribute to the hon. Gentleman, because he has contributed well to these debates. We are now in Committee; we gave the Bill support on Second Reading because we wanted it to be considered here. I speak for my hon. Friends—all of them—when I say that the Committee is used to tease out from the Government information of the sort that enables us to vote appropriately on Third Reading.

David Curry: Will my hon. Friend permit to say that I believe our party divides three ways: those who are against and voted against; those who are against and did not vote; and those who are against and voted for?

Humfrey Malins: In the long history of helpful interventions, I am not entirely sure where that ranks. However, my right hon. Friend makes a very good point.
Let us be absolutely serious for a moment: there is very divided opinion in the governing party and in the opposition party. We will not play politics, however, because I believe that there are those at a very high level in the governing party who fundamentally object to this measure and those in my party of great seniority who take a view that differs from the official party position. Both parties, as we have come to realise in the past week or so, are very broad Churches indeed. Our purpose is to go through the Bill quite carefully. 
Can the Minister give us a genuine estimate of what everything will cost and can he separate that out into the various components? Will his costings include the thousands of biometric readers that I gather will be needed to check irises and fingerprints online when it becomes necessary to prove one's identity to gain access to public services? I have been told that the Home Office has said that the biometric readers could cost between £250 and £750 each. Does he have an estimate of how many of them will be needed? There are those who think there will have to be many thousands of them, and many thousands at such a cost add up to a lot of money. 
Citizens Advice tells me that those of our citizens who are very poor will have great difficulty in participating in the scheme, and it rightly believes that there needs to be a clear and fair charging regime. I think that the Minister will be able to tell us of some sliding charge, which will recognise the fact that some  people have less money than others. I would also be grateful if he summarised in straightforward language the gist of the Bill's regulatory impact assessment. That is an important document, which is of relevance to the total cost of the scheme and the split in it. 
I have intentionally kept my remarks to a minimum; the debate could easily carry on much longer. However, I want to return to the recommendations of the Home Affairs Committee. It discussed costings at great length and its conclusion was disappointing for the Government: 
 ''The Home Office have provided us with details of the assumptions on which their costings have been based, on a confidential basis. We are not convinced that the level of confidentiality applied is justified. Cost information is an essential element in determining the value for money of any project. It is of prime importance where expenditure is funded from the public purse and of particular relevance with regard to public sector IT projects which have a history of poor performance and cost-overruns. We are also concerned that the least robust cost estimates appear to relate to the assumptions with the greatest cost-sensitivity, such as the length of enrolment time, the anticipated number of applications requiring further investigation, the cost of card production and the criteria for subsidised cards. Changes to any one of these factors could cause significant increases to the cost of the programme.'' 
In their response, the Government said that they would make information on cost assumptions and estimates available as Parliament debates the substantive legislation. That is what we are doing. There can be no better time and place for the Government to give us their best view about costings than in this sitting. 
My amendment would issue the identity card to individuals for free. It is a probing amendment, however, so I conclude by asking the Minister to be very specific in his response to the inquiries on what will be the charge to the individual and on whether there will be any sliding scale, as well as whether account will be taken of individuals' particular financial circumstances and hardships. What guarantee can he give that the costs that he will talk about later this evening will not shoot up in the months and years ahead so as to make a burden on individuals that is already heavy well nigh intolerable? 
Does the Minister understand my first central point, which is that there is a real debate to be had about how to spend a big sum of money better so as to obtain the results that we want? That is a fundamental question.

Richard Allan: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Gentleman, who has been arguing with conviction and passion about whether the provision outlines the best way to spend the money available. I say more power to his elbow in the daily debate that I am sure he is having with his colleagues on where their party should end up on Third Reading.

John Robertson: I am interested to hear the hon. Gentleman's point. Was it made because he and the hon. Member for Woking are kindred spirits on the Bill?

Richard Allan: From a political point of view, I would be pleased if Conservative Members came round to our way of thinking, because it clearly would make for more exciting progress on the Bill in another place,  even if we could not quite muster the numbers in this House to amend it substantially. However, perhaps more Labour Members will also come round to our way of thinking.

Humfrey Malins: Following the point made by the hon. Gentleman, I have said throughout my parliamentary career that I have much in common on several issues with people in other parties of good will and good sense. One of the problems with the parliamentary system is that we seem perpetually to be at each other's throats when, on some occasions, we agree. I have often thought that the hon. Gentleman has spoken sensibly about several issues. I hope I do not get into trouble for saying that.

Richard Allan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. It is late in the day and we have been here for a long time, but I was energised during our comfort break by an encounter with two young constituents of my neighbour, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson). They were so concerned about the proceedings on the Bill that they had prepared some good briefing notes on their worry. They met the Minister and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough and, at her expense, had come down to express their views. That helps to set our proceedings in context: they are important to people outside the House, even if they do not always seem to be.
Amendment No. 186 covers some important principles that deal with how we charge people for public services. Because we charge people for passports and driving licences, a lazy assumption has been made that somehow that is not public money or taxation and that we should read that across to ID cards. We could equally come at the matter from the other end and say that we do not charge people for a national insurance number card, a national health service card or going on to the electoral register. In common with other arguments that I have advanced in Committee, there is a fundamental difference here between a universal service and a service that only a number of people take up voluntarily. Our amendment targets specifically those who are brought into the scheme on a compulsory basis. 
There is a difference. The reason that we charge for passports and driving licences is that they were the preserve of the privileged. The number of people who have them may have grown, but there was an important distinction between universal services available free at the point of delivery and the privileged services for which a small number of people were expected to pay. With ID cards, we are moving into the former territory of the universal service. 
When we debate later clauses, we will consider specifically whether public services can be made conditional on the possession of an ID card. There is a legitimate argument that, if one is making a service such as the NHS conditional on having an ID card and there is a charge for that card, that starts to undermine the principle of free at the point of delivery. Good arguments can be made in principle on why we should charge people for the cards. 
We should not fool ourselves that the money is somehow not public money. I equate a charge that everyone must incur universally as being comparable with the council tax, for example, Everyone incurs a charge for that. It is public money. If we make matters compulsory universally, it is not money that is outside the public realm, so it is important that we are discussing matters in the context of something that is compulsory. All citizens, and non-citizens too—everyone who is resident in the country—will have to incur such expenditure so, in a sense, it is public money. We could go to them and say that we want them to give us money for policing or for something else. We do that on a regular basis and such matters are all discretionary. We should not exempt this case and say that we can collect money for ID cards but not for something else. It is all of a kind, and we should bear that in mind. 
Amendment No. 186 seeks to exclude those who are required to be compulsorily registered, but I suspect that the Government will have to do something like that anyway. This is the freeview version of the ID card, and the Government will have to come up with something cheap or free if they are going to be able, with public support, to deal with people left at the end of the process. I find it hard to envisage a situation in which they will be able to bring in legislation or orders that allow them to insist that everybody in the non-passport holding category of people in the country come forward and pay £50, £60 or whatever it will be for an ID card—by that time we will be talking about a lot of money if full cost recovery applies. That will be difficult. 
Given the Government's model for funding, I am concerned about the extent to which they will feel unconstrained in how they let the system develop. We are concerned that it will develop out of all control in terms of the costs required to implement it. One has to be more concerned if the notion is that any additional costs will be passed on to the public. The Government may not feel constrained to limit costs because there is a cash cow and they can pass costs on to the public, but I am not convinced that that is a healthy attitude with which to approach the problem. 
In the context of clause 8 there is a fundamental question about whether the cards need to be issued at all. Until now, we have been talking about the national identity register, and it is clear that a lot of the benefits that the Government seek to achieve come from the register rather than the card. Costs will be incurred issuing cards to people who do not want them, and the whole process of chasing people up, finding them, sending out orders and going through appeals processes is certainly not cost free. I am not sure how much that makes sense given that a lot of the benefits that the Government seek to obtain, particularly law enforcement benefits, will come from the database and biometrics and not from the card at all. The card is almost incidental to the benefits that the Government are seeking to achieve.

Chris Mole: I was minded to pose this question to the hon. Member for Woking. Given the consent that I have sensed through the debate during the past two days in Committee from all parties for a biometric passport, would the hon. Gentleman accept that the costs pertinent to the biometric passport should be levied through a charge in the same way that a charge is currently made for a passport?

Richard Allan: As I explained earlier, I recognise passports as being in a different category; it is voluntary to obtain them, which makes them different from a compulsory ID card. I have no objections in principle to the cost recovery for the passport, but we are considering extending that principle to a category of people who neither wish nor need to have a passport, and yet on whom we are potentially seeking to impose costs.
The Minister has expressed his confidence in the Bill and its legal structures, but we are on nothing like as confident ground when we come to the costs. I could summarise the exchange in the Select Committee that the hon. Member for Woking referred to as follows: the hon. Member for Walsall, North asks, ''So what's it going to cost then?'' and the Home Office official replies, ''Er, er, er, we are not sure yet.'' We do not seem to be much further on in that debate. Most figures that we have seem to have been thrown into the air. 
I reiterate my earlier call for us to be given information, particularly the gateway reviews. The reviews are carried out by the Office of Government Commerce using public money and are supposed to be the authoritative reviews that decide whether a project should go ahead. I cannot believe that at this stage they include anything of significant commercial confidentiality—or confidential commerciality, as the hon. Member for Woking said earlier—that would mean that we should not see them. That is the kind of information that I would have confidence in. If we are going to be on firm ground when debating the subject, it would be helpful to be able to discuss something from the Office of Government Commerce. 
Some Government schemes come in under budget and on time. Those that do not tend to be the ones that are overly complex, involve a great deal of novelty and contain a large number of unknowns. This project has perhaps the largest number of unknowns and the greatest novelty and complexity of any that I have seen. If the Bill is not amended in either way, because of the current Government model of cost recovery, significant bills will fall on citizens which they will have reason to feel aggrieved about, because they will not have been sufficiently involved in giving their consent to that expenditure. 
If the Government stick to their full cost recovery model, my advice to them would be to get in early. It should be to get in early or to get in late, but I think that it will be to get in early. If the system works as they intend, I think that initially they will set a fairly low price for the cards, but that the costs will ramp up. If they pass the costs on, they will ramp up significantly and are then likely to fall afterwards. That is the model that any normal business goes through. It starts to  deliver something, it is not sure what the price is—I think that, politically, the Government will put in a loss leader price—the costs go up and then they fall afterwards. The costs could fall even further if the Government have enough confidence in their business model to pass any savings made in other areas over to this budget. I should be interested to hear whether that is the Government's intention. If they make savings in, for example, the costs of identity checking in the Department for Work and Pensions or in the health service, will they pass those savings back? The individual has paid for the card. If, by virtue of having that card, money is saved for the other Departments, it is right that that should be given back. 
My fear is that, rather than have a hump of costs that we will pass on, it will be a steadily increasing line, an uphill slope. That means that those who come in early and go through the passport structure will get a reasonable fee. My suspicion is that, for political reasons, the Government will try to cover it up, pass the money on to the public purse and take it from other areas of potential expenditure. However, if they stick to the full cost recovery model, by the time they get to compulsion and the 20 per cent. of potentially poorest people, they would have to make significant charges, if they were honest about it. I am not sure what will happen, but I think that I would be fairly safe if I were to put a significant bet on the eventual costs of the scheme being considerably more than any of the figures given to us to date and a significant part of those costs falling on the poorest members of our society. 
The amendments address that issue, and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond in a way that gives us more confidence by perhaps releasing more of the information that I suspect has been prepared in the Home Office, on which we should like to be able to base our comments.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: As this is the first substantive contribution that I have made in this debate, I welcome you to the Chair, Ms Anderson, and your co-Chairman, Mr. Conway.
I know that there is some irritation at the so-called slow progress that we are making on the Bill, but Standing Committees must examine these important matters in proper detail. It is up to both Opposition parties to do exactly that. Therefore, I make no apology for raising a few, I hope very brief, points with the Minister. He may not have the answer to all of them, but I would be grateful if he would write to me, and perhaps to the rest of the Committee, and place a copy in the Library, with the answer to my questions if he cannot answer them now. He may well be able to answer them now. They are important points. The clause on costs is extremely important, so we need to examine it. 
I shall repeat the Home Office figures, because I want to ask questions to discover whether they are correct. Therefore, I should be grateful if the Minister would first verify the figures. The scheme will cost £186 million in set-up costs for the first three years from November 2003; £415 million is the estimated annual cost of the biometric passport from 2008-09; £85  million is the estimated annual cost of operating ID cards on top of possible costs; £50 million is the estimated annual cost of providing verification services; and £85 is the current best estimate for paying for all of that. 
My first question is this. Clearly the cost per card depends on the number of cards. Can the Minister tell us whether the costs are based on a pure 80 per cent. of the population, which I understand is the Government's estimate of the percentage of people who will apply for passports in the first period and therefore be obliged to have ID cards. 
What is the extra cost—the marginal cost—of the additional 20 per cent. of the population if and when the Government go for a full, compulsory ID card, which the Minister said this morning that they would? Do the Government think that at the end of the 10 years it will in fact be 20 per cent.? If not, how many more of that 20 per cent.—that is, people on very low incomes who are likely to be on pensions or in receipt of state benefits—are likely to be included? Presumably, the costs of social security to pay the £85, if it is what the cost will be, will also have to come out of general taxation. 
How many foreign nationals who stay here more than three months, including the southern Irish, whom the Minister mentioned this morning, will have to have a card? [Interruption.] These are not trivial questions. They are important, as costs will be affected. Will foreign nationals also have to pay the full cost recovery amount, or will they get the cards free of charge on the basis of reciprocal EU arrangements? 
As my hon. Friend the Member for Woking says, critically important is the number of recording devices and how much they will cost. That leads on to the precise technology that will be used for the cards. Will it be a bespoke arrangement for the UK only, or an off-the-shelf technology brought in from the US or the EU? That will critically affect the cost, and, given the Government's record—the problem is not restricted to this Government, although it has accelerated under them—on rolling out large IT projects that have run way over budget, the figures are for the birds if it is to be a bespoke arrangement. 
Could the Minister say what type of biometric information will be collected? Will it be the three main types of biometric classes—the face, the fingerprint and the iris? I believe that the US does not require all three. Finally, critically, the type of card will affect the cost. Will they be plain plastic cards, simple smart cards or sophisticated smart cards? Perhaps the Minister ought to think about offering a choice, as some people may wish to buy a sophisticated chip so that they can put other information on their ID card. One advantage of an ID card is that it could replace the plethora of plastic cards that people have to carry in their wallet. 
I hope that the Minister will be able to answer those questions today. If he cannot, I would fully understand, but I should be grateful if he would write to me.

Des Browne: I suspect that I probably will not be able to answer in detail the points that the hon. Gentleman raised, as I had no prior notice of them and I would not have necessarily expected them. He will understand that I am not equipped to answer all the questions that I could possibly be asked on the Bill—certainly not off the top of my head. He said that I might write to him, so answers will be provided to his questions and any others that I have undertaken to answer but have not been able to respond to by the conclusion of my remarks.
Amendment No. 44 would remove the ability to charge for cards issued by the Secretary of State as part of or together with a designated document. Amendment No. 186 is on the same theme but would apply only to those who are subject to compulsory registration. I suspect that the purpose of tabling the amendments was to allow hon. Members to make wide-ranging contributions about costs and to pose some questions, many of which are answered in the regulatory impact assessment. 
It was instructive to observe that the hon. Member for Woking was prepared to quote from the documents that he has, some of which are now quite dated in terms of the progress of this proposal from its inception as an entitlement card. He quoted from a number of documents—at length from some of them—and came back to the regulatory impact assessment, which has paragraphs dealing with all the issues that have been debated. Paragraphs 13 to 23 have a cost-benefit analysis and the best cost information that is available to the Government and shared with hon. Members. 
The hon. Gentleman asked me to summarise that information, and with respect to him, I do not intend to do that. All members of the Committee have had the opportunity to read the regulatory impact assessment, and that is the Government's best estimate and sets out the arguments. It is open to hon. Members to seek to intervene. 
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam is, of course, entitled to ask questions to which he knows that I do not have the answers. The Government have shared the relevant information, and I have been at pains to explain why the Bill is structured in the way that it is, and why we are proceeding in the way that we are. I am seeking support for the scheme from Parliament in a very open fashion, and having done that, I am certainly not going to stand here and make up figures, or guess at future figures. We want to move incrementally and appropriately, and Parliament will need to make decisions, the most important of which will be the compulsion decision. There will be a significant amount of information available at that point. 
What has not been helpful in this debate—something that I thought that we had laid to rest on Second Reading—has been taking the whole cost of passports in a biometric environment and the costs of the ID cards, aggregating the lot, multiplying by 10, and saying that the scheme will cost £5.5 billion. I thought that, by the concession made by the hon.  Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), which was very important, we had become grown-up about the scheme. I thought that people were not going to say any longer that the £5.5 billion should be better spent some other way. Well, if it is going to be spent some other way, the 80 per cent. of the population of this country who have passports, will not have passports. We will not be able to travel internationally; we will give up international travel in order to spend the £5.5 billion in another way. It is entirely inappropriate to put the debate in that context.

Richard Allan: For the sake of clarity, I hope that the Minister will go back over the record and recognise that I did not use the £5.5 billion figure at any time in my comments. However, he must concede that there will be some additional expenditure, as between just having biometric passports and the scheme that he proposes in the Bill. That is a significant amount of money, which it is reasonable to debate.

Des Browne: The hon. Gentleman is entirely correct, and correct also to say that he did not use that figure, although the hon. Member for Woking did. I am not seeking to apportion blame, but others will read our debates and will quote them back at us all, and quite rightly too.
One of the most important things that happened on Second Reading was the agreement across the House that the bulk of the expenditure and the development of the expertise in technology was going to have to take place anyway. We all agreed, for all our security, that we should undertake that process. That left us all in the position, in principle and in detail, of being able to debate and explore all the other issues. It is not appropriate to return to those issues, as I am being encouraged to do by the hon. Member for Woking, as if we had not had that agreement. 
The most recent cost figures that the Government have were published in the regulatory impact assessment. I am not going to repeat them, because they should all be in everyone's minds since the hon. Member for Cotswold read them out. He is precisely correct. Those are the figures that the Government have put in the public domain, and that they stand by. I am asked to give further information that has been requested before, and which the Government have said that we cannot publish for purposes of commercial confidentiality. That would be negligent of the Government, in advance of the major procurement process that will be involved, and it would not be in the interests of taxpayers— whether they paid for the process on a fully costed basis or otherwise. Would the Government obtain value for money if more detailed information and cost assumptions were published at that stage? 
There must be a balance. I understand that, which is why the OGC gateway review process was set up. It was set up so that that information could be given to people with expertise, the decisions could be made and commercial confidentiality could be retained. Putting the information in the public domain would in any event drive a coach and horses through that carefully structured process. That is the Government's position.  That will not stop people from continuing to ask for information, and I understand that, but the Government will not stop saying, ''That is why we can't do it now.''

Humfrey Malins: I am sorry that the Minister is so dismissive about cost. It is all very well to point to the regulatory impact assessment, which we have all read, but, although I take his point about the passports, we also seen contrasting views about the total cost. The Minister owes a duty to the Committee at least to tell us the totals extracted from the regulatory impact assessment because, if nothing else, it would form a record in Hansard that would be useful for parliamentarians and others. Is he not going to give us the figures?

Des Browne: Well—

Humfrey Malins: No, he is not.

Des Browne: The hon. Gentleman was present when the hon. Member for Cotswold did just that. How many times were those figures—[Interruption.] He read them. He did not read those figures from the regulatory impact assessment but from another document. The source of those figures, however, was the regulatory impact assessment. I am never reluctant to accede to the need of the hon. Member for Woking to put information in the public record, but it does not need to be in the public record three or four times within 30 minutes. I am beginning to wonder whether my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West is right about the hon. Gentleman's contributions to our debates if the hon. Gentleman now wants me to read things superfluously into the record.
The amendment, which is designed to remove the ability to charge for any cards, would mean that our proposal to cover the costs from charging would fall. That, in turn, would mean that the only source of funding for the scheme would be general taxation, but it would not make the scheme free in the sense that no one would pay for it. I am sure that Opposition Members would not find that proposition attractive, so I do not expect them to press the amendment. 
We believe that ID cards should be compared to passports rather than to those services that are free at the point of use—the very point made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam. However, if Liberal Democrats take another position, they disagree with the Government. On a regime of full cost recovery, the Bill will allow us to subsidise some groups. Sufficient discretion is allowed in the Bill should the Government of the day decide to waive fees totally for categories of people, including when compulsion is introduced, but that will be a decision for the Government of the day depending on where we are at that time. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and his predecessor made it perfectly clear that it was our intention to consider a regime in which not everyone would need to pay the full cost and that some support would be given. 
The proposal to charge for ID cards is central to our scheme, and we believe that it is reasonable. The most up-to-date research among the general public shows  that 68 per cent. of people think that an ID card combined with the passport at the currently projected cost of £85 is a good idea.

Chris Mole: The hon. Member for Woking spoke earlier of public opinion, based on available knowledge of the scheme's operation. Does the Minister think that the revised figure of 68 per cent. might rise in the knowledge of the likely cost of a biometric visa, which will be required at some stage for entry to the United States? That could be a significant separate sum, which would make having a UK biometric visa at such a cost a more attractive proposition in the first instance.

Des Browne: My hon. Friend makes a sensible and important point. I am concerned that I cannot respond other than by making some sort of guess about where public opinion will go. However, I am able to share with the Committee the fact that the last detailed research that I read—I think that it was conducted by MORI; I shall check and, if I have inadvertently given the wrong name, I shall correct myself later—showed that, as the debate has progressed, the public have become more knowledgeable about the scheme. That is appropriate and good. It is exactly as we would want it to be. However, as they were becoming more knowledgeable, the support for ID cards was being sustained at inordinately high levels for any type of public policy. I understand, as the hon. Member for Winchester says, that somebody has to speak up for the 20 per cent. However, somebody has also to speak up for the 80 per cent. If a public policy has the support of 80 per cent., somebody has to speak for them. We need not necessarily adopt the minority position.
Public opinion in support of the scheme is being sustained. People are beginning to understand more clearly what is involved in the scheme, and have a better understanding of compulsion than we give them credit for. As people understand the costings in the context of passports and grasp the reality of the fact that biometrics are becoming a significant part of document security internationally, they realise that they are prepared to meet the costs in order to continue with their own, normal, everyday transactions and international travel. 
I am not belittling this—to ask somebody for £85 is to ask somebody for a significant amount of money. To ask somebody for the current cost of a passport could be, depending on their income, to ask them for a significant amount of money. However, the money will be invested for 10 years. We are not going to go back to people every year; it will be for a 10-year passport, associated with a 10-year ID card.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I believe that the Committee might be suspended shortly, so may I ask the Minister very quickly, so that he can give us an answer in the next sitting, about the costs that I read out—£415 million, £85 million and £50 million, a total of £5.5 billion over 10 years? If 55 million British people apply for the ID cards, that is £100, not £85, each. I might be wrong, so I shall be grateful if the Minister can confirm whether I am correct.

Des Browne: With respect, I do not think that one can apply such simple arithmetic to such costings. We must bear in mind that the hon. Gentleman has already asked me for estimates in terms of the number of foreign nationals who would qualify for cards. In any event, 55 million is wrong, because not everybody who lives in the country is over 16. I am sure that he will accept that. This is for a significantly smaller number of people. I realise that the consequence of what I am saying is that the cost per head goes up.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Exactly; it goes up.

Des Browne: I shall endeavour to give the hon. Gentleman information on the calculations later in the debate. He asked for the component elements in an earlier question, and I have undertaken to try to get the answers for him. Let me say before I move on that the research to which I referred was carried out by ICM, not MORI.
The proposal is that the charge for an ID card would be a relatively small uplift to the cost of a passport. That is justified when we consider how secure the process will be. By way of comparison, several EU countries, France and Italy among them, are upgrading their national ID cards to introduce biometrics, as I have told the Committee. For decades, France has issued free cards to its citizens. I understand that the new cards will not be free. 
Another effect of the amendment would be to prevent our charging for documents that attract a charge now, if those documents were to be designated as ID cards. It might be an unintended consequence, but it is a consequence. Therefore, we could not charge the full cost for resident permits for nationals of third countries. The consequence of that would be a further loss of income for the Exchequer—or is it Opposition Members' preference for us not to designate this permit and to deprive foreign nationals of the of the security of a card that is functionally equivalent to the one to which British citizens are entitled? I do not believe that it is. We know that foreign nationals who are legitimately here to work or to study sometimes find it difficult to do everyday things, such as open a bank account, without multiple forms of ID. These people bring investment and skills to this country, and we do not want to make life harder for them. 
Before I conclude my remarks on the clause, I shall discuss amendment No. 186, which is on the same theme but which is intended to apply only to those who are subject to compulsory registration. We cannot operate on the assumption that there is a stereotypical group of people who will be subject to compulsory registration, although there is merit in the argument that people from a particular stratum of society will be over-represented. I do not imagine, if I may borrow from an earlier part of the debate, that all of the people who appear before the hon. Member for Woking when he sits as a magistrate and who are not comparatively well off do not have a passport or go abroad on holiday. Indeed, I suspect from the figures that I have  seen for international travel by UK citizens that a substantial proportion of them do, which is all to the good. Poverty is relative. 
My response to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam is that I am not prepared to treat that group of people as an amorphous mass. I shall relate to the Committee a fact that some of my Scottish colleagues will know, which is that the predecessor of my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland, Donald Dewar, who was a justifiably well respected member of this House for many years, never had a passport until he became the First Minister in Scotland. I do not believe that he had ever travelled abroad. That did not make him any less of a rounded individual. He was, in fact, a very rounded individual with a massive knowledge of several things, but he did not have a passport. 
I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, and I believe that I have responded to it appropriately by saying that there is an intention to keep the discretion and to use it to have reduced charging and, if necessary, free entitlement to cards, but I am not prepared to be forced into a position in which all compulsory cardholders will be granted that.

Richard Allan: I observe that the Minister, in talking about this 20 per cent., is having to depend on anecdote and supposition. I am looking at him and thinking that the Home Office research department is a very well respected organisation with comprehensive resources. I wonder whether it would not be helpful to all of us if members of that department could ask people at the Office for National Statistics and others, who I am sure have this information, to give us some sort of profile of people who do not have passports They are the people who we are talking about.

Des Browne: That is a reasonable request, and if it can be responded to, I will see what can be done.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. I shall share a general observation with him. I took through the House the Bill that was designed to introduce, and introduced with significant success, an electoral identity card in Northern Ireland in order to combat electoral fraud. We may have to address certain consequences for registration but, broadly speaking, the last election in Northern Ireland was the least criticised for electoral fraud. It was the first election conducted with electoral identity cards. That scheme operated on the basis that a comparatively small number of people needed to have them, because other secure documents with photographic identification were broadly accepted as their equivalent. It was helpful to that debate to try to work out just how many people needed these cards to see what the challenge was. So I will be happy to respond to the hon. Gentleman's request to the extent that it is possible to do so. 
I have tried to address the issues that hon. Members have raised, with the honourable exception of the hon. Member for Cotswold, who asked me very specific questions, which I suspect he knew I would not be able to answer in this contribution. Before I invite the hon. Member for Woking to withdraw his amendment,  which I oppose, I shall share, with the leave of the Chairman, information relating to carriers' liability figures, which I promised to read for the record if I had them. From December 2002, when the carriers' liability regime changed, my understanding is that £5.6 million of fines were imposed—which was reduced on appeal to £2.97 million—that £1.35 million has been paid so far, and that £125,780 has been waived, with the qualification that the outstanding balance is due  within a payment period of 60 days and that some appeals are still pending. Those are the best figures that I can obtain. 
Debate adjourned.—[Joan Ryan.] 
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes to Seven o'clock, till Tuesday 25 January at ten minutes past Nine o'clock.